Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW COMMONS CHAMBER

Thanks to Donors of Gifts

Mr. Speaker: I have a few announcements to make to the House. This morning I have signed 56 letters to those who have given gifts to our new House of Commons. These letters are illuminated and, I think, are beautiful works of art. I am having a copy put in the Library for hon. Members to see, but I am afraid it can only be there this afternoon and this evening because, of course, we want to despatch them. They will be in the Library and I trust that they will not be spoilt in any way whatsoever.

Messages from Overseas Legislatures

Mr. Speaker: Now I have some messages to read out to this House of Commons. The first is from the Legislative Assembly of the Sudan:
The Legislative Assembly of the Sudan sends greetings and congratulations on the occasion of the re-occupation of their Chamber by the House of Commons. May they continue in the future, as in the past, to stand as an example before the world of the triumph of free speech, tolerance and the rights of the individual over tyranny and the rule of force and to light the paths of younger nations striving towards the practical realisation of the true democratic ideal.

MOHAMED SALEH SHINGEITI,

Speaker."

The next is from the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales:
DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I have read with much interest cabled reports relating to the ceremony which will take place on the 26th October instant when the new House of Commons will be opened and dedicated to the service of the people of Great Britain. In anticipation of that event, it affords me pleasure, as the Speaker of the Lower House of the oldest legislature in Australasia, to offer you my felicitations on this historic occasion and my assurance that the interest and pride of myself and of the members of the Legislative Assembly of New

South Wales in our enduring system of Parliamentary Government will be greatly stimulated by the ceremony shortly to take place at Westminster.
It is a source of gratification and pleasure to all Australian parliamentarians that Australia's gift to the new House of Commons Chamber, the Speaker's Chair, will be such a direct and significant link between the Mother of Parliaments and the Parliaments of the States and Commonwealth of Australia.
May I express the hope that the opening of the new Chamber will coincide with the commencement of what will prove to be a period of peace, progress and happiness for the people of Great Britain.

Yours sincerely, W. H. LAMB,

Speaker."

Now I have a Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
That this House conveys to the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Commons greetings upon the opening of the new House of Commons and warmest wishes for the prosperity of the country which they serve, recalling with pride and gratitude the part played by that House throughout the centuries, and trusting that under the guidance of Divine Providence its deliberations will continue for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Signed, ARCHIE MICHAELIS, Speaker.

The last is from the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya:
The President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, assembled in the youngest city of the Commonwealth, convey, by the hand of their Speaker, an expression of the high regard and esteem, together with their congratulations on the opening of the reconstructed House of Commons Buildings. They, in common with all members of the Commonwealth, retain immense pride in the British Parliamentary Institutions, developed and annealed through the centuries and surviving, as they always will, international conflicts and social upheavals and serving as a model to the world. The Kenya Legislature will ever look to the traditions, constitution, procedure and dignity of the Mother of Parliaments for guidance and inspiration.

Signed, J. D. RANKINE,

Acting Governor."

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9

Return ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1950."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 29)

Return ordered,

"respecting application of Standing Order No. 29 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1950, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:


1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure moved, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when moved
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure moved, and by whom
Question before Committee when moved
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against"

—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and Acts passed in Session 1950.
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1950 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1950 have been referred by the Committee of Selection to Committees on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; and the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by

the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways of Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1950, showing;

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1950, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1950, the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,
of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1950, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of Business; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of Estimates considered by the Scottish Standing Committee, the number of days on which each Committee sat and the titles of all Bills and Estimates considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, the number of Members present on each of those days and, in the case of the Estimates, the number of days on which they were considered and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Private Building Licences

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the issue of licences for the building of private houses.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on this subject soon.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what quotas were allocated this year in Scotland for the building of dwelling-houses by private licence and for house conversions, or extension, by private licence; whether these quotas have been fully taken up; and whether they are interchangeable in the event of one or other not being fully used.

Mr. T. Fraser: Against a total allocation of 2,100, the building of 1,376 new houses has already been authorised and more will be authorised as further applications are received. Against a total quota of some £2,400,000 for local authority licensed work, including conversions and extensions, licences had been issued for £2,100,000 at 30th September. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Physiotherapists' Qualifications (Report)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the qualifications required by physiotherapists employed in the National Health Service will be published.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): My right hon. Friend expects to receive this Report in a day or two, when the question of publication will be considered.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the hon. Lady seized of the importance of publicity being given to this Report in view of the fact that it affects a certain number of peope who wish to undertake a certain form of training and wish to know whether they will be acceptable?

Miss Herbison: Certainly.

Tenancy of Shops Act (Extension)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the widespread desire for the extension of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, which is due to expire on 31st December, 1950; and whether he will take steps to extend it for one further year at least.

Miss Herbison: As my right hon. Friend indicated in reply to Questions by hon. Members on 20th June, it has been decided to ask Parliament to extend the operation of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, beyond 31st December next by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that her answer will give a great deal of satisfaction in Scotland?

Teachers' Pensions (Payment)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider amending the Teachers' Superannuation Rules (Scotland), 1926, so as to enable the many retired teachers who desire it to receive their retirement pensions monthly instead of quarterly as at present.

Miss Herbison: This amendment has been noted for consideration when legislation affecting teachers' pensions is required. The change suggested would involve an increase of staff and could not conveniently be made in Scotland alone.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the hon. Lady realise the hardship which is inflicted upon retired teachers who have been in the habit of getting their payments monthly but now have to go on a quarterly budget, which is extremely difficult in view of the rising cost of living?

Miss Herbison: Yes, I certainly realise the difficulty that some of these teachers are experiencing, but it is impossible at present, because of the reasons I have given, to alter these to monthly payments.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the hon. Lady realise that labour could be saved in the Education Department of the Scottish Office by bankers' drafts being used for these monthly payments instead of quarterly payments?

Miss Herbison: Great consideration has been given to this matter, taking in the point made by the hon. Member, but it is still found impossible to make the alteration at present.

Forestry Commission Cottages (Site)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he licensed the erection of six forest workers' cottages now being undertaken by the Forestry Commission on a site which is floodable and which has in fact been recently flooded.

Mr. T. Fraser: The site selected was the most suitable of those available and was approved by the local planning authority. A flood was caused last year through a breach in the banks of the burn after exceptional rainfall. The banks have now been raised and there should be no further flooding.

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that flooding takes place not only through the burn overflowing, but through surface water coming down from the hill above and, if these foresters' cottages are not to be removed but are to be finished, will the hon. Gentleman arrange that the flooding from the hill above is stopped, because that is the worst of the trouble?

Mr. Fraser: I understand that the flooding from the higher ground is to be avoided by the construction of a ditch to divert the water.

Farm, Glenisla

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what compensation and reduction of rent is being offered to his tenant at Freuchies, Glenisia, in consequence of the erection of foresters' cottages on his land.

Mr. T. Fraser: By agreement with the tenant, the rent of this farm has been reduced by £1 15s. per annum on account of the loss of the area taken by the Forestry Commission for the erection of forest workers' houses.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the water supply pipe to the farm of Freuchies, Glenisla, which was cut last June, has not been mended, so that the agricultural workers have now to fetch water in buckets.

Mr. T. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has no information that the supply pipe in question was cut last June, or by whom. A complaint was made at the end of August, however, about deterioration of the piping. This has been investigated, and arrangements are now in hand for the renewal of the defective piping.

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if a private landlord had done this sort of thing, there would have been a devil of a row? [An HON. MEMBER: "He did do it."] No, this farm was owned by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Fraser: I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member. The Department did not do anything to cause deterioration and when it was called to the attention of the Department, it was investigated and remedial action has been taken.

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it had not been taken a week ago? Will he see that it is done at once, and will he see me outside afterwards?

Housing, Scotstoun

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new homes have been provided annually in Scotstoun since 1945; how do these numbers compare with each of the five years after the 1914–18 war; and what are the comparable figures for the whole of Scotland during each of the same two periods.

Mr. T. Fraser: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that part of the Scotstoun constituency composed of the Knightswood and adjoining housing schemes, at a time when there was a moderate majority on the Corporation and a Conservative Government in office, approximately 5,000 houses were built between 1923 and 1930? Is he further aware that, in addition, approximately 1,000 houses were built in Scotstoun for owner-occupation in the inter-war years?

Mr. Fraser: I completely fail to see what that has to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the five years after the first war not a single house was built in Scotstoun?

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether in his answer he was referring to the number of houses built or the number provided?

Following is the statement:

The availability and suitability of sites in any given area within a city is always a determining factor in the number of houses which the Corporation can build from year to year in any one Parliamentary constituency. Bearing this consideration in mind, however, in the period 1945–49 the Corporation built 1,257 permanent and temporary houses in the Scotstoun division compared with 20 in the period 1919–23.

The annual figures are as follows:


1919
…
—
1945
263


1920
…
—
1946
588


1921
…
20
1947
345


1922
…
—
1948
98


1923
…
—
1949
73




20

1,257

Corresponding figures of houses built by private enterprise in the division are not available.

The total numbers of permanent and temporary houses built in Scotland as a whole are:


1919
…
—
1945
2,006


1920
…
1,957
1946
16,429


1921
…
6,579
1947
24,143


1922
…
12,050
1948
28,761


1923
…
8,129
1949
25,923

Local Authority Houses (Construction Time)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what length of time is now being taken by the local authorities to build traditional and non-traditional permanent houses.

Mr. T. Fraser: On average, traditional houses completed in December, 1949, took 74 weeks to build, and non-traditional, 46 weeks. A similar analysis of houses completed in September, 1950, is in progress and I will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result whenever it is known.

Chemists (Dispensing Fees)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the result of the 8 per cent. cut in their-dispensing fee on the chemists of Scotland.

Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) on 18th September last. In particular, I want to emphasise that this provisional reduction, which amounts to 8 per cent. of total payments and not 8 per cent. of dispensing fees only, is essentially a device to enable negotiation or arbitration to reach a settlement with retrospective effect in favour of the Service and not only of the chemists. It is not a substantive cut in remuneration.
Since that statement, my right hon. Friend has had a meeting with representatives of the chemists, and both parties are considering various aspects of the position further in the light of the frank discussion which took place. Meanwhile, the Whitley Council are attempting to reach agreement on procedure for an early reference to arbitration.

Sir T. Moore: I hesitate to heckle the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—for whom I have a great regard, but is she satisfied and are the Government satisfied that they are really treating the chemists fairly in regard to this cut, and are they treating the chemists fairly in regard to payments as a whole for what the chemists supply?

Miss Herbison: The latter part of the supplementary question does not arise from the original Question, and I am certain that when the hon. and gallant Member reads the reply I have given he will be satisfied that every attempt is being made to give justice to the chemists and to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Linstead: May I ask the hon. Lady whether her right hon. Friend is conscious of the need for getting this deadlock settled before the end of November, when the notices which the chemists have given expire and there may be a breakdown in the service? Is the danger of that understood by her right hon. Friend?

Miss Herbison: That is perfectly understood by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Will the hon. Lady agree that all this would never have happened if the pricing bureau had not broken down? Is she further aware that the pricing bureau has only priced four out of 26 months and about 20 tons of prescriptions had to be sent back to Edinburgh unsorted and unpriced? Should she not put her own house in order first?

Miss Herbison: That is a completely different question from the one on the Order Paper, which does not affect that supplementary question.

Hospital Treatment (Complaints)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the event of a patient's condition deteriorating as the result of treatment in a hospital, that patient, if he believes negligence to have been the cause, is entitled to claim a thorough investigation.

Miss Herbison: All necessary investigation is made into complaints by patients who are dissatisfied with their hospital treatment.

Mr. Macdonald: If the patient concerned obtains the opinion of outside medical practitioners that his or her case has deteriorated, is a hospital in the National Health Service prepared to investigate the matter on behalf of the patient?

Miss Herbison: If the hon. Member has particulars of any case and will let me have them, I should be able to give him a better answer.

Mr. Macdonald: I shall be glad to send the hon. Lady a case.

Armadale Pier (Reconstruction)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will confirm authority for the reconstruction of Armadale Pier.

Miss Herbison: The provisions of the order authorising reconstruction of the pier at Armadale are presently being adjusted with the county council and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to present the confirming Bill to Parliament early next Session.

Agricultural Land (Use)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ensure that, before agricultural land is transferred to forestry, there is adequate consultation with the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the existing arrangements for safeguarding agricultural interests are adequate. These include consultation in each case with the chairman of the agricultural executive committee.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the importance of food production to the country, it is very important that men with an adequate local knowledge of farming conditions should be consulted? Is it not the case that in some instances some Departmental officials are not so fully informed on local conditions as they might be?

Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that the chairman of the agricultural executive committee was a person with local knowledge. He is not an official of the Department.

Mr. Vane: Who has the Secretary of State to advise him on forestry matters other than the Forestry Commission, who are always interested parties?

Mr. Fraser: The original Question asked about advice, not on forestry matters, but on agricultural matters. My right hon. Friend has the Department of Agriculture as well as the Forestry Commission to advise him on that.

Mr. Snadden: Why do not the Forestry Commission take in hand the planting of the vast areas of Inverness-shire which were cut down after the First World War?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a discussion on forestry as a whole. This Question asks only whether there is consultation with the N.F.U. before agricultural land is transferred to forestry.

Sir David Robertson: Why should any land in Scotland which is capable of growing food be used for timber growing when we have such an abundance of mountainous land suitable for forestry?

Mr. Fraser: That is a different question. I was originally asked about consultation

with the N.F.U. before agricultural land is transferred to forestry. The hon. Member is now asking me to justify the planting of trees on land which would grow food. There is very little land which would not grow some food, but we have to hold the balance, and we have to plant trees where that would mean a better use of the land.

Spey Drainage Scheme

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the acreage certified as suitable for drainage in the Spey drainage scheme.

Mr. T. Fraser: About 5,000 acres of land are affected by flooding in the Upper Spey Valley but without a close survey it is difficult to say what proportion could be improved at reasonable cost.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In view of the size of the area of land concerned, could we not get on with this Spey drainage scheme? Could not a good deal more active consideration be given to it than has been given up to the present?

Mr. Fraser: No scheme has been formulated for the area because the statutory provisions at present seem to be inadequate for the purpose. The noble Lord will appreciate that we have been consulting the National Farmers' Union and other interests concerned about the Duncan Committee's Report, which we received earlier in the year, and which proposes some legislative changes in the matter.

Housing Programme

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the rearmament programme will affect housing in Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: At this early stage it is not possible to forecast what, if any, effect the defence programme will have on housing in Scotland.

Sir T. Moore: Can the hon. Gentleman estimate how many houses would be built if we were defeated in a possible war through lack of rearmament?

Mr. Fraser: That seems to me to be a slightly hypothetical question.

Norwegian Timber Houses

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now given further consideration to the possibility of importing Norwegian timber houses to supplement the housing programme in Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider any proposals of this kind which may be submitted to him by local authorities within their normal allocation.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that this matter has been mentioned before, and that these houses appear to be particularly suitable for some parts of Scotland where the climate is a little windy?

Mr. Fraser: We are not averse to building these houses. We have said to local authorities that they shall be free to decide what non-traditional type of house they shall take, if any. If they ask for this type, we will endeavour to get it for them.

Mrs. Mann: Will my hon. Friend see to it that Scottish firms are used to their full potential before we begin importing from any other country?

Mr. Fraser: We have to leave something to the local authorities. If they prefer a particular type of house, we have to try to met their requirements.

Commander Galbraith: Is not the importation of a number of these houses an increase in the number of houses available, and why should they be considered within the allocation?

Mr. Fraser: The erection of even these houses requires some labour.

White Fish Authority (Terms of Reference)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the terms of reference of the white fish board and. in particular, whether it will have authority to deal with the problems of freight charges, transport and marketing.

Mr. T. Fraser: In advance of legislation the members-designate of the White Fish authority have been appointed to advise on all matters concerning the

control, regulation, reorganisation and development of the white fish industry and the terms of the legislation necessary to give adequate powers to enable this task to be carried out.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State say whether he intends to include in his legislation powers to enable the Authority to carry out experiments, say, in refrigerated transport or the quick freezing of white fish, and such matters?

Mr. Fraser: The Authority appointed has been given wide powers to investigate and advise on what powers it should be given by legislation. I cannot anticipate what advice we shall get from it.

Sheriff Substitutes

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will raise the salaries of all sheriff substitutes to the level of county court judges in England and Wales, in view of the diversity and responsibility of the judicial duties of the former.

Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that the question should not be considered in isolation from the question of judicial salaries generally.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the fact that some county court judges in England have less responsibility than have the sheriff substitutes in Scotland, why has the salary of the sheriff substitutes not been raised? It is possible to raise their salary without an Act of Parliament, as compared with the case of English judges. Further, since the salaries of other high-ranking members of the Civil Service, of which they are members, have recently been raised, why should not the salary of the sheriff substitutes be raised?

Miss Herbison: All these questions have been considered, and the answer still is that we cannot possibly consider it at present.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will abolish the title of sheriff substitute in Scotland and replace it with a title more commensurate with the dignity and judicial importance of this position.

Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend is unable to hold out any prospect of legislation to give effect to this proposal, which has been the subject of consideration on numerous occasions in the past and which is still a highly contentious matter within the legal profession.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State considering a change of nomenclature? In the case of the sheriff substitute, the term "substitute" does not necessarily carry with it the dignity of the position, and should be changed.

Miss Herbison: This matter has been considered by previous Secretaries of State and the Lord Advocate, but no agreement has yet been reached by the judicial bodies in Scotland. If agreement could be reached by those bodies, steps would be taken to bring legislation before Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED PERSONS (TRICYCLES)

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of persons waiting for motor-propelled tricycles; the average period of waiting; and how soon he estimates it will be possible to meet the demand.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The number of persons waiting to be supplied with motor-propelled tricycles is 2,474. The average time of waiting is eight to 10 months, but special action is taken to meet urgent needs. The present output exceeds the current demand and I anticipate that the further steps I have taken to increase production will enable the outstanding balance to be substantially reduced within the next few months.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the Minister say how many have been supplied, and, of those, how many of the excellent all-weather type of propelled vehices?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The total number of motor tricycles now in use is approximately 3,500. Some 2,000-odd of these are for Health Service patients and the remainder for war pensioners. The number of the new all-weather tricycles supplied to date is 742.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the figure given by the Minister in reply to the first

part of the Question include both Service patients and National Health patients?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. Of those who are waiting, 304 are war pensioners and some 2,000-odd are National Health Service patients.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Rifle Practice, East Cheshire

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Territorial and Auxiliary units in East Cheshire have no reasonable facilities for rifle practice; and if he will consider providing a .303 rifle range in this area.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): No, Sir. Adequate range facilities exist in East Cheshire for the training of the Territorial and auxiliary forces units located there.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite wrong and that those who want to practise long-range firing have to travel 50 miles at their own expense? How can he expect to get recruits and others interested when they are put to this inconvenience? Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Stewart: The information of the hon. and gallant Member conflicts with mine on this matter, but if he will pursue the matter with me, I will look into it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these rifles issued to Territorial units are most inaccurate and that therefore training with them is rather pointless?

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that on the Order Paper, as it seems to be another question.

Establishments

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking with a view to bringing units of the Territorial Army up to their authorised establishments, having regard to the extension of continuous National Service from 18 months to two years and the corresponding delay in National Service men passing to the Territorial Army.

Mr. M. Stewart: The extension of full-time National Service from 18 months to


two years has provided an increase in our Regular Forces which it is unavoidable should be at the expense of the Territorial Army. In the long run, however, the Territorial Army will receive better trained men. Voluntary recruitment for the Territorial Army is, of course, proceeding.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possible use of class Z Reservists in certain circumstances to fill the gaps in the Territorial Army?

Mr. Stewart: The circumstances in which the class Z Reserve ought to be used are very different from the circumstances obtaining at present

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister of Defence told the House that he is planning everything for 1951 but that, so far, the War Office have done nothing—at least, they have not informed this House of any steps to make the Territorial Army fit for anything by 1951? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree. On a number of occasions this House has been informed of what has been done for the Territorial Army.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Has the Minister also considered the possibility of allowing men to volunteer to perform their National Service in the Territorial Army with a shortened period of continuous service and a higher liability for drills when they are in the Territorial Army?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now proposing something which, I think, would involve an alteration of the National Service Acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Called-Up Reservists

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Reservists who have been called up have been placed on indefinite leave; and what action he proposes to take in this respect.

Mr. M. Stewart: Present regulations do not authorise the granting of indefinite leave to Reservists recalled to the Colours.

Mr. Fraser: But surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that great hardship has been caused to certain people? In my

constituency I have evidence of at least three cases of men who have been called up, have ceased their ordinary civil employment, and have been put on indefinite leave for a considerable period. "Indefinite leave" as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not indefinite in the true sense of the word; it may mean a fortnight or more; but they have got into a very unfortunate financial plight and also their use is lost to the country's productive resources.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member asked about indefinite leave. There is no such thing. If there are cases of men who have been given definite leave for a definite period and this has led to hardship, perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars.

Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is prevaricating over the use of the word "indefinite"? These men are being told to report to units and often they are without news for more than a fortnight as to when they shall report. This is an extremely serious matter.

Courts-Martial

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War who is the competent military authority to decide whether a court-martial is to be held in secret.

Mr. M. Stewart: This is a question for the decision of the court itself. For further details I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 18th September.

Cadet Force (Visits, Germany and Austria)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will provide facilities for members of the Army Cadet Force to visit the Continent, and in particular places where the campaign in North-West Europe was conducted. as part of their training.

Mr. M. Stewart: Facilities are provided on repayment for visits by parties of the Army Cadet Force and the Combined Cadet Force to Germany and Austria.

Ordnance Depot, Bicester (Staff)

Mr. John Hay: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent civilian clerical supervisory staff at the Central


Ordnance Depot at Bicester are to be replaced by military ranks; how many are affected by this change; and how many replacements have been made to date.

Mr. M. Stewart: With one exception, the revised establishments for this depot which have been prepared but are not yet approved do not provide for any replacement of civilian clerical supervisory staff by military ranks.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman give particulars of the exception he mentioned.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. That is where a temporary clerk, grade I, in the statistical section is to be replaced by a staff-sergeant.

Bomb Accident, Pendle Hill

Mr. Fort: asked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken to prevent a repetition of the accident which occurred on Pendle Hill, near Clitheroe, recently when one young man was killed and two others were severely injured by a bomb.

Mr. M. Stewart: I deeply regret this incident. A thorough search of the area by mechanical detectors and by visual methods is now proceeding. It must be emphasised, however, that, provided missiles found on land are not tampered with, they are harmless. If any person finds one he should not touch it, but should mark the spot and immediately report it to the local police.

Mr. Fort: As Pendle Hill is one of the most beautiful parts of Lancashire, and indeed of all England, and is much visited by those living in the surrounding towns and countryside, will the hon. Gentleman impress upon the military authorities the need for a thorough search over a wide area where any bombs may have been thrown and now be lodged?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. This area was twice cleared in October and December, 1945. The hon. Member who knows the area will realise the extreme difficulty of being absolutely certain that every source of danger has been removed. As I have said, a further search with mechanical aids is now proceeding.

Reservists (Medical Examination)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that Reservists called up will be subject to individual medical examination before posting to units.

Mr. M. Stewart: All Reservists who are called up will be given a complete medical examination at their place of joining as soon as possible after they report for service. In certain cases they are recalled direct to their units.

Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the particular point in my Question? Are these medical examinations indeed individual and not like the circumstances of the case about which we have corresponded?

Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by "individual." Every man, when he reports to his depôt or unit, is medically examined as soon as possible after he has reported.

Mr. Vane: I thought that "individual" meant one at a time and not in a bunch, to avoid circumstances in which a person unfit for military service might be overlooked.

Mr. Stewart: That is the regular practice.

Mr. Janner: May I ask whether the answer of my hon. Friend means that a man will be examined in his own town, in which he is living, because, as my hon. Friend is aware, there may be very considerable hardships to a man when he is taken away from his town.

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir; he will be examined at his place of joining.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in view of the decline in manpower in the coal mines, no further miners will be called up?

Mr. Stewart: That is another question.

Mr. Janner: Arising out of my hon. Friend's reply to my supplementary question, will he reconsider the matter, because there are many cases in which people are seriously ill and it is quite ridiculous to ask them to go away from their home town? Will he please find out whether it would be possible for them to be examined in their own town?

Mr. Stewart: If a man is seriously ill at the time of his recall, that case can, of course, be examined on its merits.

Anti-Aircraft Resources, Germany

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to increase the anti-aircraft resources of the Rhine Army both in terms of men and equipment.

Mr. M. Stewart: Steps are being taken to increase the anti-aircraft resources of the British Army of the Rhine. It would not be in the public interest to give details.

Mr. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman please see that the steps are taken a bit faster?

East and West African Troops

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet considered any scheme for the raising in East and West Africa of divisions for general service; and, if so, whether he will proceed to give effect to such a scheme.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 14th September.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that statement nothing definite was said by his right hon. Friend? Is it not a fact that African troops rendered excellent service in the late war and would not such troops be valuable successors to the Indian Army? Also, would not the education, training and discipline they would get in the Army be very valuable to these troops?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member has made a comparison with the Indian Army, but he will appreciate that these territories have neither the population nor the resources of India, and that what he has in mind—and I do not dispute its general desirability—is a much more difficult problem.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that this question of raising divisions will be reconsidered and the question of raising units will be gone into in great detail?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member will consult what the Minister of Defence said, he will see that the door was by no means closed.

Sir Richard Acland: Will the Minister take careful steps to ascertain African local opinion on this question before any steps are taken, as it might have most serious repercussions if we did not find out the views of the people concerned?

Mr. Stewart: That consideration will certainly be taken into account along with a great many others.

Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who has just returned from there, has informed me that they all said that sufficient volunteers to double the existing force could easily be made available provided officers were there; and in view of the shortage of man-power, is it not worth exploring this matter further?

Mr. Nally: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, whatever views he considers about any matters in Africa, or indeed the Middle or Far East, he certainly will not in any consideration take into account the views of the hon. Member for Hornsey?

Operational Formations (Organisation)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking towards organising units at home in operational formations; and, with that object in view, for the setting up of depôts or establishments for the elementary training of recruits.

Mr. M. Stewart: Steps are being taken to increase the strategic reserve in the United Kingdom by an armoured division and an infantry division. To perform the training hitherto undertaken by Regular units which are being reactivated from the training rôle and grouped in the new divisions, group training centres are being formed.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the Minister aware that it is impossible for units that are employed at troop training establishments to form efficient parts of operational formations and to be ready for service?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but, as I pointed out, group training centres are now being formed to fulfil that training rôle in place of the battalions which previously performed it.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman fight a rearguard action against this word "reactivated," which seems to be a new horror in military jargon?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the instructors taken to these new training units will not be taken from the units which are now being formed as new divisions, otherwise the situation will be the same as it was before?

Mr. Stewart: There is no escaping from the fact that, since there are a certain number of men to train, a certain amount of manpower must be used.

Overseas Allowances, Hong Kong

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how far the Hong Kong rate of local overseas allowance is still paid to officers and men previously stationed there and now on service in Korea; in so far as reductions have been made, what payments in lieu are made to those with families still resident in Hong Kong; and how long these payments will continue.

Mr. M. Stewart: Hong Kong rates of local overseas allowance were paid to these officers and men up to 30th September. They then ceased, but payment of the difference between married and single rates of local overseas allowance was continued in respect of those with families remaining in Hong Kong, and will continue for so long as the families necessarily reside there.

Mr. Low: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that the difference between the married and single rates of overseas allowance covers the extra expense which must be borne by a married man now serving in Korea whose family remained in Hong Kong? Surely, such a man ought to be paid the whole marriage allowance which was designed for his family need.

Mr. Stewart: I think that the arrangement we have made is a fair one in the circumstances.

Armoured Division, Germany

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the arrival of 11 Armoured Division to the British Army of the Rhine will add the normal complement of an armoured division in tanks and armoured regiments to the number of tanks and armoured regiments at present in the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. M. Stewart: It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Low: How comes it that it is not in the public interest to tell the House that that which it has been promised would be done has been done? Surely, it can only be not in the public interest if the answer to this Question is "No," and that would be very serious.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member must make what speculations he chooses. I think he knows as well as I do that it would not be in the public interest.

Mr. Low: I suggest that it is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that it is only not in the public interest because the answer to my Question is in the negative.

Mr. Nally: In view of the interest on all matters of security which is particularly demonstrated by the Opposition, is it not a fact that it would be contrary to the public interest, and a very great danger on many occasions connected with military matters, if any Minister of the Crown or any junior Minister were to give in this House the exact composition, and its relation to full strength, of any division proceeding for overseas service; and will he take all the precautions he can to en sure that these facts—

Mr. Speaker: This seems to be a long speech. It is almost an argument: it is not a question.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate what this secrecy is about, because the Prime Minister told us in absolutely definite terms that we were sending a new armoured division to Germany? What is the secrecy about? Is it that its number is 11, or what?

Mr. Stewart: No. The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the Question refers to the complement of tanks and other details about this division. It asks


for much more detailed information than has already been given or than it would be reasonable to give.

Mr. Eden: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the establishments of armoured divisions are published and are known to the whole world, so what is the secrecy?

Equipment, Germany

Brigadier Head: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that at the manœuvres, recently held in Western Germany, the equipment of the British troops was found to be serviceable and sufficiently up to date.

Mr. M. Stewart: Some of the present equipment of the Army undoubtedly needs replacement. This is one of the objects of the recently announced increase in defence expenditure. New types of equipment, which have taken time to develop, are now becoming available. On the other hand, it would be wrong to assume that some of the types of equipment used in the last war are now either obsolete or unserviceable.

Brigadier Head: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in view of the urgency of this matter, orders are being placed so that the deficiency and obsolescence of the equipment in these units will be made good in the very near future?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, so far as is permitted by the expenditure on defence with which this House is familiar.

Personal Case

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the application of Major J. W. M. Denton, that his retirement in February, 1949, may be classed as on account of disability, in view of the fact that, although found unfit earlier he remained on duty at the request of the then colonel of his regiment, until he could be replaced, and in consequence has suffered considerable financial loss.

Mr. M. Stewart: This matter has already been very carefully considered and I cannot add anything to the replies already given to the hon. Member.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister prepared to make inquiries from the medical officer of the unit to get evidence, which could

be confirmed by the colonel of the regiment, to see whether this man's statement is correct or not?

Mr. Stewart: This is not a question of the correctness of the man's statement. This gentleman is claiming something to which he would be entitled if he had been invalided out of the Army. It is a fact not in dispute that he was not invalided out of the Army.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, but is not it a fact that he was to have been invalided out of the Army and that he remained on after that at the request of the colonel of the regiment?

Mr. Stewart: No. He was not at any time invalided out of the Army.

Mr. Taylor: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Brecon Beacons (Inquiry)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why the National Parks Commission was not represented at his public inquiry about the War Office proposal to acquire important parts of the Brecon Beacons.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): Because the Commission decided in this case to express the views in a letter to the chairman of the inquiry.

Mr. Keeling: Is not it desirable that, as a general rule, the National Parks Commission should be represented at the hearing of proposals to acquire land in one of these proposed parks?

Mr. Dalton: This is a matter which I must leave to their discretion in particular cases. Evidently they cannot be represented at all inquiries. In this case, which they recognise as important, a letter was sent and read aloud at the inquiry, following a visit by a member of the Commission to the ground in question.

Toll House, Hampstead Lane

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware of the danger and congestion


caused by the toll house in Hampstead Lane; and if he will release it from its present classification, with a view to having it demolished.

Mr. Dalton: No one, other than the hon. Member, has suggested pulling down this ancient building, and I have no evidence that it causes danger and congestion.

Mr. Shepherd: Is not it a fact that this building is extremely ugly, that it is not used in any way, and that the real public interest, historical and otherwise, lies in the Spaniard's Inn, which is just opposite?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's observations are generally accepted. I have been in touch with the Middlesex County Council and the Finchley Borough Council, who are the authorities in question. They have had no complaints that there is any danger, and there has been no proposal, except that made by the hon. Gentleman, to remove the building. I am not prepared to take any steps in that direction.

Mr. Messer: Is not it a fact that the presence of this building compels motor cars to slow down and that, therefore, this is really a matter of safety?

Mr. Dalton: I dare say that that is true. If we still had only winding country lanes, there would be fewer deaths on the road.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are other hon. Members who share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Sick Visiting

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance the total number of persons employed upon sick visiting duties; the percentage of persons drawing sickness benefit who are visited; and the extent to which abuse of the benefits has been detected.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): It is not practicable to give a precise figure of the staff engaged on sick visiting, as this work is

generally combined with other duties. During three recent months, 245,000 sickness visits were paid, but this cannot properly be expressed as a percentage of people on benefit, in view of the varying periods for which benefit is drawn. As regards the last part of the Question, while sick visiting plays an important part in the general supervision of benefit claims, it is also largely directed to the interests of sick people themselves. The results of visiting cannot be assessed statistically.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Lady tell us what relationship the existing visiting bears to the visiting carried on by the societies before?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Sickness Certificates

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many reports have been received from doctors of dishonest attempts to obtain sick certificates from them.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not aware that any such reports have been made to my Department.

Major Lloyd: Without wishing to cast any reflection on the right hon. Lady's department as a result of that confession. may I ask whether she has made inquiries and found out that this is a racket which is notorious everywhere else, and will she do something about it?

Dr. Summerskill: I really must register a protest on behalf of the patients and the doctors. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that, if a patient goes to see a doctor and asks for a certificate to which he is not properly entitled, the doctor will refuse, but will not communicate with me on the subject? In fact, my Department has no responsibility for this matter.

Major Lloyd: Does the right hon. Lady say that her Department is the only Department which has not heard the views of doctors all over the country on this subject, which we have heard?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me any evidence—two or three letters from these doctors—perhaps I might change my mind, but I challenge him.

Silicosis and Pneumoconiosis

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will instruct the silicosis and pneumoconiosis medical boards to notify each case of silicosis or pneumoconiosis to the appropriate factory inspector, in order that inspection can be carried out and improvements effected.

Dr. Summerskill: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about continuing the arrangements for co-operation with the factory inspectorate which existed under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that there is room for considerable improvement in some factories where dust exists and where, perhaps, the regulations are not always very well observed; and that factory inspectors cannot be helpful in this or any other case unless they know about the case as soon as it is diagnosed?

Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the arrangements that we are now making, but I am sure he must realise that we must bear in mind the confidential nature of the communication which we have from the patient.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: When the Minister communicates with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, will she satisfy herself that there are enough factory inspectors to do this job?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Polish Hostels

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many Polish hostels are now run by the National Assistance Board; what is their total population; and how many Polish staff are paid by the Board in connection with the running of these hostels.

Dr. Summerskill: The National Assistance Board are administering 26 Polish hostels. At 26th September, the total number of Poles in these hostels was 14,461, of whom 878 were employed by the Board.

Mr. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend see any finality in this matter?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend must realise that only about 5,000 of these 14,000 are being fed and accommodated by the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (APPOINTMENTS)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Prime Minister how many trade union officials have been appointed to positions in nationalised or other Government-controlled industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind. I have no information about, nor have Ministers any responsibility for, the appointment of staffs in socialised industries. The number of trade union or former trade union officials who have been appointed to the Boards of socialised industries, including the executives and the area boards appointed under Statute, is 44.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is rather a disservice to the very responsible trade union movement to take its leading negotiators away into other activities, thereby denying their services to the movement?

Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion this figure represents to the total appointments made to these Boards?

The Prime Minister: I should think there are about 350, and, therefore, it is 44 out of 350.

Major Tufton Beamish: Can the Prime Minister say whether a "socialised" industry is the same as a "nationalised" industry?

Mr. Gibson: Can the Prime Minister tell us how many directors of companies have been appointed?

The Prime Minister: If that question is put down on the Order Paper, I shall be pleased to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIELD MARSHAL SMUTS (MEMORIAL)

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Prime Minister if he is making arrangements to erect a memorial to Field Marshal Smuts.

The Prime Minister: It is customary for the initiative in matters of this kind


to be taken by private individuals or voluntary associations. I can, of course, assure the House that, should there be a general desire to erect a memorial in this country to Field Marshal Smuts, His Majesty's Government would give most careful and sympathetic consideration to any proposal.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the Prime Minister satisfied that there is such a general desire?

Mr. Peter Roberts: Would it not be a very pleasing tribute to the memory of a great man if the Government would take a lead in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION OF PROFITS AND INCOME (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Diamond: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make about the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income.

The Prime Minister: The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of the right hon. Lord Justice Cohen as Chairman of the Royal Commission to be set up to inquire into the present system of taxation of profits and income. The precise terms of reference and the full composition of the Royal Commission will be announced shortly.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that Lord Justice Cohen is not a trade union official?

Mr. Ellis Smith: When considering the terms of reference, will my right hon. Friend consider making them as comprehensive as possible, so that a full investigation can take place?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will take that point into consideration.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the importance of the matter, will the Prime Minister press that the report shall be made as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: One always wants reports made as quickly as possible, but, of course, it is a matter for the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is prepared to introduce amendments to Standing Orders so as to permit the tabling by hon. Members of Questions for oral answer during the early days of an emergency recall of Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have given sympathetic consideration to this suggestion, but I do not think such an amendment of Standing Orders would be desirable. An emergency Sitting of the House is often called at short notice and the length of the Sitting cannot be known in advance. Any amendment of Standing Orders to permit the tabling of Questions during the early days of such a Sitting would necessarily be cumbrous, as it would have to distinguish between Sittings called at short or long notice and would have to cover other unforeseeable circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Lord President say why, if there is no difficulty in Questions being tabled up to 48 hours before an ordinary Sitting of Parliament, any particular difficulty should arise when it happens to be an emergency Sitting; and is he satisfied that emergency Sittings have now become a regular feature of the Summer Recess, and that it is just at these moments that it is most important that hon. Members should have an opportunity of making sure that Ministers have done their duty?

Mr. Morrison: I do not admit that emergency Sittings have become an ordinary feature of the Summer Recess. There is nothing fixed or settled about it, and it is very difficult to see in advance what the circumstances will be. I assure the House that I have been sympathetic about it, but on the whole, I think it would be an unwise departure to make.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in future we shall not have at least one month's notice of an emergency Sitting?

Mr. Morrison: That is another point.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council whether present estimates that have been announced as the


approximate cost of the Festival of Britain include the subsequent dismantling, clearing away and getting the site ready for other uses.

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the South Bank Exhibition, which is only part of the Festival. The present estimates include provision for the dismantling of the buildings and the clearance to ground level of the site, after allowing for the salvage value of the buildings.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Lord President put in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed estimate showing how this total was made up in order to see where this figure appears?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I am really not going to bother about going into any details about it. We had better get on with the job.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to receive the Report of the Beveridge Committee on the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I told the House on 13th June, the Broadcasting Committee have been asked to report by the end of the year. I understand that the

Committee are doing their best to comply with this request.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that all the evidence that has been given to the Beveridge Committee will be made public?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE (ULTIMUS HAERES ACCOUNT)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Ultimus Haeres Account was presented in dummy on 31st May, 1949, when the full accounts were only available on 22nd July, 1949.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer designate (Mr. Gaitskell): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to his question on the Crown's Nominee Account on 19th October. The same circumstances applied in the case of the Ultimus Haeres Account in 1949. The hon. Member will, however, have observed that this year the Ultimus Haeres Account was not laid in dummy and the full accounts were presented on the 27th June, 1950.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say, now that it is half-past three, whether the same answer applies to Question No. 52?

NEW COMMONS CHAMBER

Message from The King

Message from His Majesty, Brought up and read by Mr. SPEAKER (all the Members being uncovered) as follows:

Your former place of sitting has now been rebuilt. Adorned and equipped with the generous gifts received from other countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations it is ready for your use as a new House of Commons. It is my pleasure that you do occupy the new Chamber on Thursday, the 26th day of October.

GEORGE, R.

24th October, 1950.

Motion for Address in Reply

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move an Address in reply to His Majesty's Gracious Message as follows:
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled humbly beg leave to offer to Your Majesty our most hearty thanks for the arrangements which Your Majesty was pleased to make (with the most willing assent of the House of Lords) for our accommodation in Your Palace of Westminster since the destruction of the House of Commons nine years ago. We also tender our most grateful thanks to Your Majesty for having caused the rebuilding, on the same site, of that Chamber in Your Palace of Westminster which was allocated for the use of the Commons by Your Royal Predecessor Queen Victoria nearly a hundred years ago and which was destroyed by the malice of Your enemies in 1941.
In that dark time, when almost all Europe lay beneath the heel of the conqueror, Your Majesty's peoples stood firmly together and freely shed their blood in the cause of democratic freedom. In this same generous spirit those Peoples have given lavishly of the natural products of their soil and of their own skill and industry to brighten and adorn the new Chamber which You have set apart for our use.
We thank Your Majesty for the gracious message directing us to occupy the new Chamber on Thursday the 26th day of October and for the arrangements which have enabled the Speakers, Presiding Officers or their deputies of so many countries of the Commonwealth and Empire to be present on this occasion.
In all humility we trust that with God's help our deliberations in our new Chamber may result in securing the peace, well being and happiness not only of our own people and the peoples of the Commonwealth but of all the peoples of the world.

This is an occasion that is fraught with emotion for all Members of the House of Commons, but especially for those of us who knew and worked in the old Chamber. The House has met in a number of Chambers in the course of its long history. In 1834, St. Stephen's Chapel, which had been the scene of the great orations by Chatham, Pitt, Fox and Burke, was destroyed by fire. For 18 years the Commons had to wait until 1852 when the House of Commons that we knew, the work of Barry and Pugin, was at last taken into use. In that Chamber. too, great orators were heard, Gladstone and Disraeli overshadowing all, and in its last year it was the scene of memorable speeches by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in our darkest but finest hour.
We can recall that night in May, 1941, when our old Chamber was destroyed. I well remember picking my way over the ruins and my feeling of deep emotion at the loss of something so intimately bound up with the life of the nation. That Chamber was far from perfect, but it was very dear to us. The Government of the day, an all-party Government, decided that without delay the work of building a new Chamber should begin despite all the difficulties in which we were involved, and despite all urgent conflicting claims. I am sure that that decision was right, for this House is the habitation, not merely of a number of individuals, but of the spirit of Parliamentary Government. It is the workshop of democracy.
Here may I express the thanks of us all to the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the Father of the House. It was appointed in October, 1943, and reported in January, 1945. Its report, which was the work of Members of all parties, was accepted by all. What was its main feature? It recommended that the form and size of the new Chamber should be as nearly as possible the same as that of the old. Strangers sometimes ask me why, when a new Chamber had to be built, did we not decide to provide seats for all on the Floor; why did not we provide desks, or why did not we have some variation in the shape and arrangement of the House, something on the lines of that prevailing in some other younger legislatures.
I think the answer is that changes of this kind would have destroyed the intimate traditions of this House; they would have affected the style of debate to which we have been accustomed for so many years, and I think this decision is in harmony with our British methods where so often we preserve the form of our institutions while altering their content and purpose. I think the British have the distinction above all other nations of being able to put new wine into old bottles without bursting them.
The Churchill Arch, built out of stones salvaged from the old Chamber, is a symbol of the continuity of our institutions. On the other hand, without any alteration of essentials, many improvements have been introduced. The galleries have been extended, there is more room for the Press and the public, and the need for this, I think, is shown by the long queues waiting for admission to our debates. I do not think there has ever been a keener interest than is shown today in the proceedings of Parliament. Again, on the lower floors there is a whole range of rooms, beautiful and convenient taking the place of that apparatus that formerly used to blow cold air over our feet.
I am sure that the ventilation of the new House will be a great improvement, and there was surely very great need for this. I never used to appreciate those strange river smells which used to be blown across the Front Benches in old times. I am assured, too, that the acoustics of the new House are to be very good. They have been thoroughly tested on Guardsmen and civil servants, and in the new House I am assured that even my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) will be heard without difficulty.
The new Chamber will be adorned by gifts from overseas. From 45 countries of the Commonwealth and Empire, from small peoples as well as great, from every continent have come these generous gifts from our fellow members. In the Chamber and outside we shall have a constant reminder that we belong to what General Smuts used to call "The British family of nations." And so we are grateful to the legislatures of so many Commonwealth States for sending their Speakers or presiding officers to take part in our House warming.
I think we have now a House of great beauty, a monument of British architecture and craftsmanship. I should like to pay tribute to Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, the architect, to Dr. Oscar Faber, the engineer, and to all the artists and craftsmen, the masons and carpenters and those who have given of their best to make this a Chamber worthy of the greatest democratic assembly in the world.
The Lord President will be moving later a suitable motion of thanks to their Lordships for lending us their Chamber while our new House was in building. The personnel of this House changes rapidly. To many hon. Members this Chamber is the only Commons House which they have known; yet, within 48 hours, it will become once more "another place." It will, I know, be the wish of us all that the new Chamber, like the old, will ever be the home of free Debate, a temple of tolerance, a strong fortress of liberty. Long may it endure.

Mr. Churchill: I beg to second the Motion.
We are all indebted to the Prime Minister for his speech. We join with him in all that he has said. His speech was full of memories and showed how comprehending he is of the background to our daily political life. We associate ourselves with the tributes he has paid to the work of the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), to the designers, architects and engineers, and also to the craftsmen to whom the rebuilding of the House of Commons, was, I am sure, a labour of love. Also we support him in expressing our thanks to the Governments of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations, whose representatives we welcome and whose gifts we cherish.
I must thank the Prime Minister for his personal references to me. I am a child of the House of Commons and have been here—or there, I am not quite sure which it is—I believe longer than anyone. I was much upset when I was violently thrown out of my collective cradle. I certainly wanted to get back to it as soon as possible. Now the day has dawned, the hour almost come, and I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for the persistence and vigour and efficiency which they have shown in the task of rebuilding in so short a time and amidst many other competitive pre-occupations.
It excites world wonder m the Parliamentary countries that we should build a Chamber, starting afresh, which can only seat two-thirds of its Members. It is difficult to explain this to those who do not know our ways. They cannot easily be made to understand why we consider that the intensity, passion, intimacy, informality and spontaneity of our Debates constitute the personality of the House of Commons and endow it at once with its focus and its strength.
It is likely, Mr. Speaker—I must warn you of this beforehand—that there will be differences of opinion even among ourselves when we meet again in our old Chamber with so many Members who have only known this spacious abode. However, I believe that in 10 or 20 years everyone will be thoroughly used to it. Anyhow, even if they do not, I do not see what they are going to do about it. For good or for ill the old gangs of all parties are united. They are a pretty tough lot when they stand together like that. That is not to say that minor changes may not be necessary, and we can quite easily, without raising structural issues, work our way into the most convenient arrangements for our lighting, heating, hearing, overhearing and ventilation technicalities.
I have been astonished to look what lies behind what I may call the presentation of Government policy in this matter. I trust that all their subterranean designs are not of such a highly elaborate and, on the whole, effective character. An hon. Member who was wounded by being deprived of the pomp and perquisite of a special seat and special desk for himself in the Chamber might find himself fully consoled by the material comforts and conveniences which he can derive from his life underground.
The Prime Minister said—and said quite truly—that the House of Commons was the workshop of democracy. But it has other claims too. It is the champion of the people against executive oppression. I am not making a party point; that is quite unfitting on such an occasion. But the House of Commons has ever been the controller and, if need be, the changer of the rulers of the day and of the Ministers appointed by the Crown. It stands forever against oligarchy and one-man power. All these

traditions, which have brought us into being over hundreds of years, carrying a large proportion of the commanding thought of the human race with us, all these traditions received new draughts of life as the franchise was extended until it became universal. The House of Commons stands for freedom and law, and this is the message which the Mother of Parliaments has proved itself capable of proclaiming to the world at large.
I have the honour to second the Motion.

Mr. Clement Davies: I count it an honour and a high privilege to be permitted to support this Motion. In the Gracious Message from His Majesty and in the Motion proposed by the Prime Minister, we note and underline once again the continuity of our Constitution, and we glory in our long, centuries-old tradition of which we are the proud inheritors. We are, as for generations we have been, the guests of His Majesty, and we are bid to occupy a new Chamber in His Majesty's Palace.
We humbly present our duty to His Majesty and tender to him our most grateful thanks. The King is the head of this nation, and in himself he symbolises the unity of the British people here in these islands and throughout the Commonwealth and Empire, and of our united desire and will to work together for the peace, well-being and happiness not only of our own people and those of the Commonwealth, but of all peoples of the world.
The rise of the new Chamber on the site of the old, the generous contributions towards its adornment and equipment made by the Commonwealth, and the warm and loving interest in its creation and opening, signified by the presence of the Speakers of their Legislative Assemblies, mark the position of a fresh milestone on the road which we of the Commonwealth have mapped out for ourselves as the way towards universal peace, goodwill and happiness.
In burning down the old Chamber in 1941, an enemy meant not only to destroy that building but to destroy this nation, the Commonwealth and free democracy. That enemy, in seeking to destroy freedom, destroyed himself. So may it always be, and so it always will be, so long as free peoples cherish their freedom, maintain constant watch and guard


against those who would overthrow and demolish it, and hold fast to that unity from which they derive their strength.
On Thursday, by His Majesty's pleasure, the Commons will return home. We shall return home with full hearts, proud that under God victory has been vouchsafed to us, and by our very return we shall demonstrate that the cause of freedom is unconquerable. We loyally, humbly and dutifully thank His Majesty.

Earl Winterton: It would be ungracious on my part if I did not rise to thank the Prime Minister most sincerely, and also my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, for the very generous tribute which has been paid to the Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. I think that I can say without impropriety that it was a very happy and united body, and I was very privileged to preside over it because, quite frankly, there were two members of it who in attainment and status were very considerably superior to myself.
It might interest the House to know that about 100 years ago there was a somewhat similar Debate in this House, though not on the same question—it was not on an Address—when the House was about to enter the rebuilt House after the fire of 1834. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to be able to report to you, and through you to the House, that the proceedings on this occasion are far more harmonious than they were them, Mr. Bernal Osborne, a well-known Member of the House at that time, suggested that the best thing that could be done would be to take the House down and re-erect it in Hyde Park where it would form a much better home for the Exhibition than the Crystal Palace. He was followed by another hon. Member who said he disagreed with what his hon. Friend had said; personally he thought that the House was well suited to be an aviary and that all it required were a few canaries to twitter in the roof. I need hardly say that these two speeches were greeted with loud cheers and laughter which sometimes characterise the worst jokes made in this House. At any rate, that was the situation.
To be more serious, I should like in the two minutes that I shall allow myself to add to the tributes that have already been paid by the three right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me to another

set of persons. May I say without offence—because I am well aware that either praise or blame of the Chair is usually out of order—that all of us who were connected with the fire watching at the House of Commons—I was an assistant supervisor working, in the democratic system that we had, under one of the custodians as a supervisor—are much indebted to you, Sir, and to the Clerks at the Table, to the officials of the House, the workmen and all the others who were concerned not only for the arrangements that were made for the fire watching but for the extraordinary efficiency and felicity of the moves that were made respectively to Church House and afterwards to this place.
I should like also in that connection to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister of the National Government, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, and, by no means least, to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House who was Home Secretary, for the manner in which they co-operated and assisted in these changes. In the course of the war there were naturally many successful operations carried out of infinitely greater magnitude and risk than the civilian one to which I have just referred, but no plan could have been carried out more efficiently and with greater devotion to duty on the part of the officials, civil servants and workmen engaged than that which secured the continuance of the life of this House as an institution after its physical home in the shape of the old Chamber had been destroyed. In supporting this Motion I should like to pay my tribute to all those who made that operation possible.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved:
That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the whole House."—[The Prime Minister.]

Resolved:
That such Members of this House as are of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, do humbly know His Majesty's pleasure when He will be attended by this House with the said Address and whether His Majesty will be Graciously pleased to permit the invited representatives of overseas Parliaments of the British Commonwealth and Empire to accompany this House in attending His Majesty.".—[The Prime Minister.]

Message of Thanks to the Lords

4.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That this House again expresses its grateful appreciation of the courtesy of the House of Lords in placing their Chamber at the disposal of His Majesty for the occupation of this House after the destruction of the Commons Chamber by enemy action in 1941; warmly thanks Their Lordships for so readily consenting to this continued use of their Chamber up to the present time, and recognises that their example of self-sacrifice and goodwill in the face of danger and difficulty was in accord with the highest traditions of Parliament.
Partings are always sad, and the pleasure of the House at returning to premises of its own will be tempered with regret at leaving the Chamber which, with great generosity, their Lordships placed at its disposal more than nine years ago and in which so much that will live in history has taken place. It was on 10th May, 1941, that our old Chamber was destroyed in one of the culminating raids of the first Nazi blitz on London. The noble Lord has referred to the efforts that were made by various people to protect these Parliamentary buildings, and I thank him for his kindly reference.
I recall previously asking Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor to meet me, as Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, to consider the civil defence of Parliament, and we all remember with gratitude the response of Members of Parliament, officers of the House and, let me add, Parliamentary journalists in faithfully doing all they could for the protection of our Parliamentary institutions; and so it was with the more professional Civil Defence Services that assisted us from outside.
However, the blow came, but, true to the spirit of the nation and the people of London, we did not allow the incident to interrupt the continuity of our proceedings. For a few weeks, during which this Chamber was being made ready for our use, we met in what, for reasons of security, was called the Annexe—in other words, Church House—until, on 19th June, the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, informed the House that, in the words of the Journal of the House:
He had received the command of His Majesty to acquaint the House that the House

of Peers having expressed their willingness to place the Chamber appropriated to their use at the disposal of this House, he had given directions that that Chamber should be made available for the Sittings of this House.
The House at once passed a Resolution of warm appreciation of the courtesy of the House of Peers, but security considerations made it impossible to acknowledge our indebtedness publicly and no reference could be made to it in HANSARD or in the Press. Our inability to do then what we should have liked adds to our obligations now.
We first met here on 24th June, 1941. and, as guests sometimes have a way of doing, we have stayed far longer than was expected. That will have this advantage: should hon. Members in various parts of the House ultimately be elevated to their Lordships' House they will not feel so strange in that Chamber as might otherwise have been the case. But their Lordships have shown themselves perfect hosts and as far as I am aware, they have never given the slightest indication that we have outstayed our welcome; and this is despite the fact that, while on the whole relations between the two Houses have been harmonious, there have been one or two spots of bother.
But, more seriously, every Parliamentarian will appreciate that it has been of inestimable advantage to us through these critical years that we have been able to use the only alternative meeting place in which we could easily maintain the traditional character and atmosphere of our proceedings. That means more in the conduct of Parliamentary business than most people who have never sat in Parliament can easily realise.
The years during which we have been in residence here have not been uneventful, and I like to think that, during them the British Parliament has, if this is possible, even grown in strength and reputation. It was within these four walls that some of the historic Debates of the war took place and that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. made some of his greatest war speeches. This House was also the home, throughout, of the House of Commons which was elected in 1945 to deal with the critical problems of the peace. I do not wish to be controversial but, in my own opinion, the Parliament of 1945—and I am speaking of the Parliament as a whole—will be


looked upon as one of our great Parliaments, and I do not think that any who disagree with that view will deny, at any rate, that few Parliaments in our history have been more important.
Many of the present Members of the House will not have sat in any other Chamber but this. For them the parting will be more of a landmark than for the rest of us and the memories which they will take with them will be especially dear. But, even for senior Members, nine-and-a-half years is a large slice out of most Parliamentary careers. Few of us will leave this Chamber without a measure of regret, few without memories which we shall always value, and none, I am sure, without a sense of real gratitude to their Lordships for the self-sacrifice and good will they have shown. We thank our hosts. As Leader of the House of Commons I regard myself as privileged and honoured to move the Motion and I have no doubt that it will have unanimous support.

Mr. Eden: I beg to second the Motion.
I gladly associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Motion. I believe time was when, if this House wanted to send any message at all to another place, it was necessary that it should be delivered by what was described as the men in charge of business. That must have been a rather cumbrous proceeding, interrupting the work both of this House and of another place, and I do not know that we should think it a very good idea to revive it for ordinary use now, but it is appropriate that the exception should be made on this occasion and that the men in charge should go to another place to express the thanks which hon. Members in all parts of the House sincerely feel.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the night, fresh in the minds of many of us, when our old House was destroyed. For my part I always thought it was singularly obliging of the enemy to chose for their operation a period of time when none of us was there, however, that may be looked upon by the nation apart from ourselves. We can all recall those homeless days and the generous act which first placed Church House at our disposal, and we can also recall many discussions we had, including some in the War Cabinet

which my right hon. Friend will remember, as to when we could leave Church House; not because we were ungrateful but because all Parliamentarians like to be in the Palace of Westminster if they possibly can. There was always the security consideration—whether we could leave that place for the many-windowed building in which we now are.
I hope that those who lent us this building do not feel that we have stayed here too long. We have certainly been here quite a while but, if we recall those days in Church House, it is strange how, when we are in the Palace of Westminster, we realise that no other building, however skilfully adapted, could quite meet our needs. I remember one thing about Church House which used to distress me very much. The Front Benches were very much too close to one another and the consequence was that we saw very much too much of one another; and I am quite sure that if that had gone on too long it would have had very unsatisfactory consequences. Those, and a score of other features, are what make the life of the Palace of Westminster in contrast to other buildings.
We have been here very long. To their Lordships' House it must sometimes have seemed an eternity—even longer than the definition of eternity which the late Lord Balfour once gave—"It is a man you invite for lunch who stays for tea." Even longer than that we have lingered in this House, but it has been through the kindness of another place that we have been able to do our work; and so, when we thank them, we are thanking them not only on our own behalf but also on behalf of those who send us here. As the Leader of the House indicated, they may not at all times agree with everything we do. At least, however, they have done everything that in their power lay to enable us to discharge our task efficiently in the conditions which the enemy imposed upon us. For that and their other acts of kindness in connection with our occupation of this Chamber we shall be ever grateful.

Mr. C. Davies: On behalf of my colleagues and myself I rise to support this Motion. Those of us who were present in Parliament in 1941 will never forget those years of trial and tribulation. As the years move on we shall


probably remember them with advantage. I am not at all sure we are not already remembering them now with advantage.
It was not only right and proper, but it was our bounden duty to remain in Westminster, and we are proud that we were enabled to do so. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has already said, we are deeply grateful to the Church of England for so readily lending us the use of Church House. But, quite frankly, none of us was at his ease there. It did not seem to be the right place for us.
Then came the suggestion, first put forward at a meeting of the House by that much beloved and warmly revered gentleman, the late Mr. James Maxton, that an approach might be made to their Lordships; and it was that suggestion that was readily taken up by the then Prime Minister. We are deeply grateful to their Lordships for so readily consenting to give up the use of this their Chamber, and so enabling us to return to the Palace of Westminster. We have, thanks to their generosity, occupied this Chamber during some of the most historic and momentous years during the long life of Parliament.
But I also believe that their Lordships have also benefited by their own generosity. If they have, it is just as it should be. A generous act, like the exercise of the quality of mercy, should be twice blessed, and bless those who give as well those who receive, and I think the quality of their Lordships' Debates and of their deliberations has been enhanced by the greater intimacy of the small Chamber His Majesty graciously placed at their disposal. Certainly it seems to me that the high standard of their Debates

has had a greater and increasing influence both upon policy and upon thought. In leaving their Chamber and returning to our new one so that they may return to their old one we offer to them our warm and sincere gratitude for their act of generosity and courtesy.

Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente.

Resolved:
That this House again expresses its grateful appreciation of the courtesy of the House of Lords in placing their Chamber at the disposal of His Majesty for the occupation of this House after the destruction of the Commons Chamber by enemy action in 1941; warmly thanks Their Lordships for so readily consenting to this continued use of their Chamber up to the present time, and recognises that their example of self-sacrifice and good will in the face of danger and difficulty was in accord with the highest traditions of Parliament.

Resolved:
That the said Resolution be communicated to the Lords, and that the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Clement Davies, Earl Winterton, and Mr. Herbert Morrison do communicate the same.

Later—

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I have to report that I and the other right hon. Gentlemen appointed by the House have been to the Lords according to order and communicated to the Lords the Resolution of the House this day, and that the Lords have given the following answer:
This House deeply appreciates the message of thanks brought up from the Commons this day.
It will always be a source of satisfaction that it was the privilege of this House to assist the other House when its Chamber was destroyed by enemy action in 1941, and to share with it the honour and the burden of maintaining the institutions of parliamentary government through the perilous times of the Second World War and during the arduous years of reconstruction.

SPEED LIMIT (ESTATE CARS)

4.14 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.
The purpose of these regulations is to exempt utility vehicles—very often called "estate cars" or "shooting brakes"—from the speed limit of 30 miles an hour. I have received representations from Members of both this House and another place drawing my attention to anomalies that have developed and surrounded these increasingly popular vehicles in recent years. My difficulty has been how to deal with this matter and exempt this particular class of vehicle without exempting a number of other similar categories.
As hon. Members are aware, speed limits are governed by the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1934. In 1937 this problem was complicated by a High Court decision which determined that, as the utility vehicle was not constructed solely for the purpose of carrying passengers, it was subject to the speed limit of 30 miles per hour. As I have already indicated, the growing popularity of this type of vehicle has increased the anomalies surrounding the use of what I consider is a very desirable type of car today.
Finding this situation not very satisfactory, in examining the First Schedule to the 1934 Act, it was not possible for me to deal with it in paragraph 1, because paragraph 1 lays it down that passenger vehicles must be solely constructed as such, and, of course, as hon. Members are aware, the adjustable back seats of the utility vehicle do not permit it to be dealt with under that paragraph. So I have proceeded to, and, I think, accomplished, a fairly satisfactory solution by submitting this Amendment to paragraph 2 (i) (a). The Amendment now constitutes two new sub-divisions to replace the original 2 (i) (a) in the existing Schedule which covers goods vehicles under three tons unladen weight and prescribes the limit of 30 miles per hour. It is the new sub-division (a) with which we are concerned tonight, because the other sub-division (aa) merely reproduces

the second part of the existing subdivision.
The effect of this will be to exempt from the speed limit—outside, of course, built-up areas—vehicles such as estate cars which do not operate under a carrier's licence and are used like private cars, but it will retain the speed limit for this type of vehicle if they need carriers' licences as at present. The carrier's licence is, of course, required for goods if the goods are carried for hire or reward or in the course of trade or business. There are certain classes of goods vehicles which do not require a carrier's licence, although they are goods vehicles. I am referring to exemptions such as farmers' goods vehicles, vehicles needed for road cleansing, vehicles owned by the British Transport Commission and their executives that were exempted under the Transport Act, and goods vehicles in the service of the Crown, of which probably the fleet of Post Office vans is the best example. While these regulations exempt the utility vehicles, it again picks up that class of vehicle which is exempted by other provisions, because quite obviously they should not escape the 30 miles an hour speed limit.
I trust it will be seen from this explanation that it is not a substantial change that I am proposing at the moment. It is a relatively minor adjustment designed to reduce the anomaly which has emerged from this new type of vehicle, which is, in fact, no different when used for passenger purposes from any type of private car. I think the method I have adopted on this occasion represents the type of flexibility and adjustment that we need in these directions, and will meet the convenience of a great number of people. I trust I shall have general support in carrying through these regulations.

4.22 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There is always some commodity, substance or article, or, as in this case, vehicle, which, as it were, lies on the borderline or margin of legislative activity. This utility vehicle is one such. One can imagine the feelings of the manufacturer after having seen the way this class of vehicle has been badgered about by Parliament over the course of the last few years. At one time it was allowed to use white petrol; then it was made to use


red and then it was put back to white. It was included in the Purchase Tax range; it then had to have some of its windows blocked up to escape Purchase Tax, and now it is again back in the Purchase Tax range. Similarly, on this question of the speed limit. I only hope that as a result of these regulations the business of meddling with this vehicle will be concluded, and that the manufacturer will be able to design a body and an engine which will be standardised and will contribute to the increasing growth of this vehicle in the export market.
We on this side of the House give approval to these regulations. We think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken an unconscionable time in bringing the matter to a conclusion. Really, his Department is one of the slowest moving Departments in the whole of the State's apparatus. It was two years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas), asked a question about this, and the Minister then said he was thinking what he would do about it. Almost a year ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) put down a question, and then the right hon. Gentleman discovered for the first time a formula of delay which he produced in answer. When asked whether he would increase the speed limit to 30 miles an hour he said:
No. I have so far found it impracticable to devise a definition which would enable these vehicles to be treated as a separate class or description for the purposes of Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 199.]
That was almost a year ago, and I imagine we must conclude that a civil servant in his Department has had a wet towel round his head for almost 12 months devising the form of words to be found on the Order Paper this afternoon. I admit that it is a bit complicated, and at first sight rather difficult to understand; but most Parliamentary intelligences ought to be able to discover what it is about after an hour's work in the Library, and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman's officers have taken so long in putting through this necessary little reform.
One of the advantages of these regulations is that they help to bring the law into repute. I understand that prosecutions have not been proceeded with for some time on this class of vehicle, either anti-

cipating Parliamentary activity or else for the reason that it simply was not reasonable in common sense to try to stop what was in effect a perfectly good passenger vehicle proceeding at speeds similar to others.
The fact that the Minister has moved in this matter emboldens me to hope that he will move in another situation cognate to this where the law is also being brought into disrepute, and that is the raising of the speed limit of heavy commercial vehicles from 20 to 30 miles an hour. I think the right hon. Gentleman is cognisant of the desire of a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that this other reform in raising the speed limit should be brought in. He is also cognisant of the fact that there are certain negotiations in progress between the trade unions and the representatives of the lorry drivers.
I very much hope that the Press and the public will take note of the fact that Parliament, with the acquiesence of the right hon. Gentleman, is moving steadily, and perhaps remorselessly, towards a situation whereby we can recognise a rate of 30 m.p.h. for heavy goods vehicles by regulation and afterwards ensure that it is enforced, which is not the case today, at the slower speed.
There is a very good case indeed to be made out for this, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware in industrial efficiency, in extra productivity for our country in its present straightened circumstances, in the standardisation of vehicle design, and, indeed, in the safety and convenience of the travelling public. All that I can do this afternoon is to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman who, at last, has made this small concession in utility vehicles, after much questioning and pressure of opinion in the House, will also be brought to realise that this other matter is of great importance, too, and that Parliament as a whole wishes to see it enacted.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: In view of my Question two years ago and of the interviews which I have had with the Minister in the House of Commons, may I congratulate him on the successful outcome of his consultations with the motor organisations concerned, even if he has taken rather longer than we hoped, and on the understanding which he has shown in this matter?

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Poole: When there has been so much harmony manifest in the Chamber, I hesitate to say anything to destroy it, and I am sure that I should be out of order if I sought to deal with the later part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), which referred to vehicles which are not embodied in the regulations before us at the moment.
I want to make one appeal to the Minister, and to thank him for the very clear exposition which he gave us on the vehicles which are involved. The noble Lord said that anyone with average Parliamentary intelligence who spent an hour in the Library would be able to find out exactly what was involved in these Regulations. I must confess that I am not up to the average of Parliamentary intelligence. My appeal to the Minister is: cannot we really have these regulations in rather more intelligible language. I confess that having read these regulations—and I think that I read them ten times—I still do not know what they are about. I thought that they had a reference to estate cars and to hearses. I do not know whether we have converted hearses to travelling at more than 30 miles per hour, but that is not very material because when any of us are inside we shall not worry very much about the speed at which we are going.
I thought that this had something to do with estate cars, and then, suddenly, on turning the regulations over, I found an explanatory note. I was delighted to find that there was an explanatory note, until I read it. Having read it over a number of times, I found that I needed someone to explain the explanatory note, because if anyone will read this explanatory note—and I will not inflict it upon the House—he will find that it really makes confusion worse confounded. I cannot understand how it is that the people who are responsible for the preparing of an explanatory note to tell us exactly what these regulations are about cannot get the thing down in simple English which the ordinary layman can understand.
To prove that I am perhaps not so far below the standard as might be thought, I went to two of my legal friends on this side of the House, because, from previous documents that I have, I thought that

these might be regulations which were doing what the noble Lord hoped might be done, and that is to raise the speed limit of commercial vehicles generally. I said to one of my legal friends, "I do not know if this is what the regulations do, but if that is the purpose, I would like you to tell me, so that I can oppose them," because I do not share the noble Lord's view upon it. My legal friend spent half-an-hour on the regulations. He is a barrister Member of this House, and for his own sake I will not disclose who he is.
Having spent half-an-hour on the regulations and the explanatory note, having confused me still more, and not having been able to tell me what they related to, to my great joy another barrister Member on this side of the House joined the company. I stayed with them for three-quarters of an hour and at the end of that time I left two barrister Members on this side of the House arguing as to what vehicles the regulations really did refer, and, so far as I know, they had not yet made up their minds.
Most of us in this House—and I wish I could say that there were many more of us—are laymen. I think that our statutory rules and orders and our legislation ought to be framed in such a fashion that they are intelligible to laymen. Without the Minister's speech this afternoon there would be very few Members of this House, I suggest, who knew what was contained in the regulations they were allowing to go through. I would ask him to tell his Department, as I would ask the Minister of any other Department which brings forward regulations in this form, to bring to the notice of his officials the need of this House to have explanatory notes which do explain something that the ordinary layman can understand.
I am in entire agreement that this class of vehicle should have this restriction removed, and I appreciate the advantage which will accrue to the manufacturers of these vehicles in now being able to get down to overcoming some of the problems which, I know, have been in their minds. For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), and I think that


he has done a good service by drawing attention to yet another example of legislation by reference, because that is the reason why we have these unintelligible regulations, difficult to explain, virtually impossible for laymen to understand and difficult for lawyers to understand.
When we consider that the purpose of these particular regulations is to remove doubts, to avoid the necessity of judicial interpretation, and to try to clarify the law, it really is quite staggering that the result is what we find it to be. A number of hon. Members—I think, if I may say so without making that too much a party point, mostly on this side of the House—have complained from time to time of the enormous amount of legislation by reference which goes on. It is defended on the ground that it is a much quicker thing to legislate by reference. That is perfectly true, but it does not need much more trouble sometimes to achieve the same purpose without legislation by reference.
These regulations could have achieved their purpose if they had read something like this: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended, or in any Orders or Regulations made thereunder, it is hereby ordered as follows—" and then set out the substance of what the Minister is now trying to achieve. There would have been no legislation by reference, technically the position would have been covered, and the substance of the regulations could have been understood.
Assuming that the draftsmen, by using this method of legislation, have got the matter right on this occasion, I think that there is one point which the Minister might have explained to the House when introducing these regulations. It is this: He explained that the speed limit will be retained in relation to these utility vehicles in those cases in which a carrier's licence will be needed. The thought that at once sprang to my mind was: Is it quite certain when a carrier's licence will be needed, because if it is not certain we shall be no better off than we were before, so far as the clarification of the law is concerned. I stand open to correction, but I think that we can assure the Minister, who has not assured us, that there will be no difficulty about that particular point.
An A licence is required if the goods are carried for hire or reward, and a C licence is required if they are carried in connection with the trade or business of the owner of the vehicle. A B licence has the benefit of both advantages—rather like the National Liberal Party which has the virtues of both parties and the voice of neither.

Mr. Poole: Will the hon. Member tell me what would be the position of a fishmonger who decided to have a day's fishing and used his utility van to carry his rods and bait? Would that be a journey in connection with his trade or business, or would it be purely recreational?

Mr. Renton: That is a most interesting point. I confess that it is not a problem which has posed itself to my mind, but, since it has been raised, I think we should have an answer from the Minister before we approve these regulations.
May I tentatively follow up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke), when he said that, while we welcome this regulation, we are a little disappointed that it does not go further towards the removal of the speed-limit anomalies? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to us what his intentions are in this respect. There is no doubt that the law is becoming complete nonsense so far as the observance of speed limits by commercial vehicles is concerned. When laws are first made by Parliament they are somewhat experimental, but when we have had an opportunity to see how they are working out in practice, and to what extent they are capable of being enforced, we ought surely to think again about them. There is no doubt that the time has come to think again about speed limits for commercial vehicles.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I am sure that the House welcomes the removal of another of these anomalies which crop up from time to time in view of the changes in technical design and improvement to motor vehicles. The difficulty with laws is that they are essentially restrictive. While they are sometimes necessarily restrictive, we are not quite so quick to remove the restrictions when


the time comes for it to be done. I share the view of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that this is a case where the law will be brought into disrepute. Anyone who has travelled along our main roads and has endeavoured to pass a utility vehicle will appreciate the speed at which they go. They are recognised as being passenger vehicles, and in many ways are the same as an ordinary private car. This is an overdue reform.
There is no doubt that we do not move fast enough in the removal of anomalies, and I share the view that it is time for the Minister to look carefully into the question of the unification of speed limits. People often try to pass these vans, thinking that they have the right to do so because they are restricted in speed, with the result that they are involved, or nearly involved, in a serious accident owing to the speed at which they travel. The Minister should look at the question of the unification of speed limits in the light of the technical developments that have taken place. The law often takes no notice of these developments, and it is not until the law is being broken so many times that it is reformed. I welcome this as a small contribution towards the general problem.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have an intense dislike of the pedantic "officialese" incorporated in these regulations, evidently to make them incomprehensible to Members, to lawyers and to laymen, alike. I enjoin the Minister to endeavour to simplify what he wants to do by regulation, which is something I regard as being a matter of national import. In underlining the views expressed by my hon. Friends, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the special position of articulated road vehicles. I would direct his attention, in particular, to the fact that, due to the very narrow drawing of these regulations, a grave loss of national resources is being caused through undue consumption of petrol on long journeys. Not only is this of national economic importance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The question of some other class of vehicle cannot be discussed under these regulations.

Mr. Nabarro: I must content myself with expressing regret that the Minister has found it necessary to draw these regulations within such narrow limits as to accord only a modicum of comfort to a large body of public opinion, which at this moment is gravely concerned to secure a measure of uniformity in maximum speed limits for commercial vehicles. I hope that the Minister will be able to proceed at an early stage with similar regulations that will enlarge the minor relaxation he has felt able to give us today.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I am one of those who, fortunately or otherwise, have been concerned for some time with the enforcement of the speed limit in our magistrates' courts. There is one fact about these regulations, which has so far escaped notice and which is worth drawing attention to because it may be the beginning of a welcome trend. Hitherto, under the Schedule of the 1930 Act which these regulations seek to amend, when a question has arisen as to whether a vehicle is within or without the speed limit, it has had to be decided how the vehicle is constructed, or how it has been adapted. Except for the class of vehicles to which these regulations apply, that question will remain. In relation to utility or station waggons, or whatever we like to call this sort of vehicle, the test is for what purpose the vehicle is being used. It may be that the House will think that this is a welcome change.
The situation at present is that we may have two identical vehicles, one carrying passengers and the other goods, subject to different treatment. A "black maria," for example, is not constructed for the carriage of goods. It is, therefore, at liberty to travel at any speed, but if racks are put in and the seats taken out it comes within the speed limit. I always thought it was a little odd to allow the traveller to go at any speed he likes when human lives were endangered, but when it was the case of somebody's bread there was a speed limit of 30 miles an hour. The point that I am making is that we are adopting a new criterion—the use to which a vehicle is put. That is a welcome change, and if the Minister comes to look at any other class of vehicle I hope he will bear the same principle in mind.
There is one other little point which occurs to me on these regulations. So far we have, in other parts of the Schedule, set speed limits to which we may subject vehicles of 20 or 30 miles an hour. These vehicles have to carry on the back of them for the benefit of our long-suffering police force placards which tell the police what sort of vehicle they are following. We are now going to have estate cars, some of which will need to carry a carrier's licence and, therefore, will be subject to a speed limit, while some of them will not be subject to a speed limit. Has the Minister considered the case of a policeman following one of these vehicles along a main road at 50, 60 or 70 miles an hour, which he may chase for miles without knowing whether at the end he is going to find somebody against whom he has a complaint or not?
Would it not be a wise thing to require these vehicles, which have a carrier's licence, to put some mark on the back so that when the policeman comes up behind them he will know to what speed limit they are subject, or that those vehicles, which claim to be exempt under these regulations, to carry some mark behind so that the policeman will know that to follow such a vehicle will be fruitless. I commend this suggestion to the Minister.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I do not want to say much on these regulations, but I am tempted to intervene because of what has been said not necessarily about the regulations. I quite agree that a case has been made out to justify these regulations, but I am concerned whether it is a step towards speeding up on the roads. The indications are that those who have given this their blessing have tried to encourage the Minister on speed. Changes of this kind, which mean speeding up on the roads, even in the case of vehicles heavier than the ones in question, is something that this House should not allow to pass through easily. I am satisfied that because of the anomalies which have been talked about that, there is justification for this new proposal, but I am also satisfied that the increased speed allowed to this class of vehicle or to any other that will subsequently follow means more deaths on the road. That is the position whether hon. Members like it or not.
This question of speeding on the roads must be watched. Death rates on the roads are increasing. There may be some reason in arguing that certain vehicles are unable to go faster on country roads, but I am satisfied that the speeds we are permitting now are contributing to a state of affairs on our roads today which we all regret. We all know that many types of vehicle are not keeping within the limits which are laid down, and something should be done to see that agreed speed limits are obeyed. That is not being observed in many parts of the country today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.

BISCUITS (CHARGES)

4.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That the Biscuits (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1437), dated 25th August, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th August, be approved.
The House will be familiar with the principal Order, the purpose of which was to withdraw the subsidy on flour when it is used for the manufacture of biscuits. This present amending Order is to increase the charge to 56s. 4d. a sack of flour—that is, increase the charge by 23s. 4d. a sack to serve this purpose. When the price of flour was increased by 12s. a sack on 25th September of last year, it placed my Department in this dilemma. The price of biscuits cannot conveniently be increased by any sum less than a penny a pound. If the price had been increased by a penny a pound, it would have been necessary to have increased the charge by a greater sum than was necessary to account for the increased cost of the price of flour.
In the circumstances then obtaining, we thought the better course was to reduce the charge by 12s. a sack, and so avoid any price increase. Now we feel that in the circumstances at present existing it is better, indeed it is unavoidable, to allow a price increase of one penny a pound on biscuits, and as a consequence of that price increase we must make a corresponding


increase of that charge of 23s. 4d. Of this 23s. 4d., 12s. will be to offset the price increase I have mentioned, and the balance to recover the fortuitous subsidy which biscuits have carried since October of last year.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I have listened with great care to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but I did not understand that today the circumstances are such that it is a good thing to put up the price of biscuits. Quite clearly the Parliamentary Secretary was reasoning that this charge should be put up because devaluation had put up the price of flour. This is a result of devaluation. We were told at the time by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that devaluation would not put up the price of anything but bread. However, in addition it has put up the price of biscuits.
A year ago the House decided that there should be that 12s. subsidy in order to help the people who depended on a certain amount of biscuits at a small price. I cannot see why today, when other prices are going up, we should put the price of biscuits up by this very large Charges Order. Never before has a Charges Order imposed a rise of such an amount as 56s. Hon. Members will see in the Order that this charge started with something like 20s., and has slowly been increased since that time. What will be the effect of this Order on the total subsidy? I should have thought that the amount of subsidy at present involved in 20s. a sack on flour used for biscuits is such that it would not very much alter the £410 million position. Again, I ask the Government why advance the cost of living by this Order?
Only early this morning we were discussing the putting up of the price of bacon, and we were told that that was the effect of the Government's policy in putting up freight charges and also, oddly enough, of the war in Korea. I expected the Parliamentary Secretary, when he was explaining the circumstances which now made it necessary to put up the price of biscuits, to say that they included the war in Korea. I was surprised that he did not follow the line of the party broadcast made last Saturday by the Lord President of the Council. It is wrong, when the cost of living is rising, for Parliament to add to the burdens of the people.
Turning to the effect of the Order, I think I have a stronger case. The Parliamentary Secretary told us why it was necessary to put up the price of biscuits by 1d. per lb. Although we are debating this Order today, it was actually introduced and came into operation a month and a half ago. The price of the cheap biscuits which are used in offices and, certainly in my constituency, by the old people and the children, has gone up by considerably more than 1d. per lb. Let me just give two examples of the cheap type of biscuits.
I remember the Osborne biscuit. I expect that many hon. Members are aware that the price has gone up from 1s. 1½d. per lb. to 1s. 4d. per lb. The Order has therefore caused a rise in the cost of that particular biscuit, which is a cheap biscuit, of 2½d. per lb. I agree that other biscuits have not gone up by that amount. The Thin Arrowroot has gone up from 1s. 1¾d. to 1s. 3¼d. May I remark, in passing, that the Parliamentary Secretary said it was necessary to get the rises by a full 1d., but in this case the customer gets a rise of more than the full penny, usually by fractions of a penny. That seems a very unsatisfactory position, considering that the people who buy these biscuits are not getting increases in wages. Many of them are old, dependent on the old age pension, and others are black-coated workers in offices. I ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter, in view of their recent policy of putting up the prices of bacon and butter, and to stop putting up the price of biscuits.

5.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No one likes to see increases in the price of anything. It is therefore right that any proposed increase should be looked at for a moment or two at least before the House agrees to it. I should have liked the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a little more information than he did in fact give us. I should like to know what addition would have had to be made to the food subsidies had this Order not been put into operation. The effect of the Order is to increase the price of biscuits by 1d. per lb. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform the House how much it would have cost in


food subsidies to allow the price of biscuits to remain as it is.
What steps are taken by the Ministry of Food to ensure that when, by reason of an Order of this kind, the price goes up, say, by 1d. a 1b., the charge to the consumer from the biscuit manufacturer is not greater than 1d. a 1b.? It seems to me that it is in the highest degree undesirable that an increase agreed to by this House should, when put into actual effect outside, result in a greater increase to the consumer. I should also like information whether this increase applies to all kinds of biscuits, sweet and dry. That point is not very clear on the face of the Order. I know very little about the manufacture of biscuits, and it may well be that different qualities of flour are needed for sweet and dry biscuits respectively. It may therefore be that in respect of one or other category of biscuit the increase of 1d. a lb. is unjustified. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to give information on the points to which I have referred.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: There is a little more mystery about this Order than has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary. As I see it, the purpose of the charge is no longer to provide that the subsidy on flour does not apply to biscuits, because when the price of flour went up a year ago, owing to devaluation, that policy was abandoned. At that time it was deemed inexpedient to raise the price of biscuits, so the price of flour was reduced by 12s. That policy has now been put into reverse. Not only is the relaxation of this time last year been caught up, but an additional charge is being made.
I cannot believe that this is a decision of the Ministry of Food. It seems to have been dictated by the Treasury. If it has, this House is entitled to know what reversal or change in Government policy this represents. Is it a deliberate attempt to cease pegging the cost of living index and to secure economy at the cost of the food of the people? I am not saying that that is good or bad. Is this an isolated step in

this direction? What instructions have the Treasury given to the Ministry of Food in regard to the cost of living, as exemplified by this Biscuits Order? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether further steps will be taken in the same direction. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has grasped my point and sees that I attach importance to the particular Order, which may be a step in a new direction in a very important branch of Government policy.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. F. Willey: I should like to reply to three of the points that have been made. In regard to the last speech, let me say that there is no mystery about this Order. We were in the dilemma of either having a fortuitous subsidy on biscuits or getting more than was accounted for by the increase in the price of flour.

Mr. Nicholson: Has not the Ministry been in that dilemma for the past year? Why has one of the horns of the dilemma caught the hon. Gentleman now?

Mr. Willey: Because we have to endeavour to keep below the subsidy ceiling of £410 million.
The second point is the amount that we will obtain by this increase. The increase in the rate of the levy will produce approximately £2 million a year. I ought also to reply to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). It is wrong to suppose that manufacturers or distributors automatically gain from any such adjustment, but in fact in this case the distributors gain because they have a percentage margin. On prices being increased, the distributors gain in the total amount which they obtain. We have thoroughly examined the matter. We have gone into their trading position and feel it quite proper that the distributors should have the benefit of this increase.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Biscuits (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1950, (S.I. 1950, No. 1437), dated 25th August, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th August, be approved.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)

5.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.
This Order, which is now presented to Parliament for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, is the third Order to be made under Section 9 of that Act. The purpose of the Order is to provide finance for the activities of the Wool Textile Research Council in the field of scientific research by imposing on the industry a levy estimated to yield between £100,000 and £120,000 a year. It is a parallel Order to that approved by Parliament in July which imposed a levy to finance export promotion work by the National Wool Textile Export Corporation. The Order has been made with the agreement of both sides of the industry and after full consultation with them.
I ought to say a few words about the Wool Textile Research Council and what happens to the money. The money collected under the Order by the Board of Trade will be paid out to meet expenses incurred by the Wool Textile Research Council in carrying out scientific research. The Council will be composed of representatives of the Wool Industries Research Association, Leeds University and the technical colleges as well as representatives of organisations representing employers and employees in the industry. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will be represented on the Council by an assessor. The Council will spend the levy money on research to be carried out by the various research institutions in the industry and in doing so will ensure a proper co-ordination of research programmes. The Council will also have the important task of encouraging a speedy application of the results of scientific research within the industry.
The Board of Trade are required by Section 9 (8) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, to consult representative organisations of em-

ployers and workers in the industry before making a levy order. This Order has the full support of the Wool Textile Delegation, representing the employers in the industry, and the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade representing the workers in the industry. The detailed provisions of the Order have been worked out in full consultation with them. The Board of Trade have also consulted a number of other trade associations, some of whose members are directly or indirectly affected by the levy provisions.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I want to bring to the attention of the Minister a point which was rather fully debated when the Act was before the House as a Bill. In the British textile industry the firms which have built the renown and esteem that British textiles enjoy in world markets are often the small firms, the small specialists, sometimes in remote areas of the country. Experience, from which I hope we shall learn, has shown that when a research council is set up it tends to look after the interests of the bigger employers. I should like the Minister to give the research council for this industry a very definite directive that the interests of the whole trade shall be studied and that the small men shall not be neglected.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Fort: I want to follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider not only the small firms but the special sides of the wool textile industry about which, with his expert and detailed knowledge of the industry, he will know. I refer in particular to firms manufacturing industrial cloths. I know from the Wool Working Party Report that we are not as sure in the wool industry as we are in the cotton industry what proportion of the total output is used for such purposes as paper making felts, printers' blankets and the like. It looks as if it is well over 10 per cent. of the industry's output and perhaps it is about 20 per cent. of the output for the home market which we certainly know is the percentage for the cotton industry from very comprehensive statistics.
I should like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the problems of these specialists of the industry, as well as the smaller firms, are considered and that much of the levy will be spent on fundamental research into the chemical and physical properties of wool and allied raw materials, covered by the Order. Then not only will the apparel side of the industry benefit from the levy but also those who are specialising in these industrial cloths which might easily be overlooked in the wider expanses of the industry. It would be of benefit to all of us if the speciality sides of our industry were recognised in this way.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: The remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, as well probably as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence), may have given rise to the impression that this industry is having some research organisation for the first time in its history. That would be a grave and quite unwarranted reflection upon an industry which was the second in this country to establish a research organisation. In 1918 the Wool Research Association was founded, being the second trade association for research purposes to be founded in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, we are not on this occasion starting up at the behest of His Majesty's Government a new development in an industry, but are carrying on in a more official form what the industry has voluntarily done over a long period of time. That is not to say that the Department of Scientific Research has not assisted in this matter. It has assisted the Research Association to the extent of £30,000 per annum and I know that the Research Association is very grateful for not only the financial assistance but also the technical and administrative assistance which it receives from the Department.
The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that this will involve a levy of about £120,000. I ought to say that this does not envisage an extension of the existing expenditure on research in the wool industry. If one looks at the balance sheet of the Research Association, leaving aside entirely the work of Leeds University, one sees that last year the total expenditure was £120,000. So we are not asking the industry for an

amount greatly in excess of the amount which it now voluntarily extends towards the Research Association.
My hon. Friend can be assured from what I know of the research organisation at Torrington that there will be no desire on the part of Dr. Cassey, the head of the organisation, to favour large firms at the expense of the small ones. The industry is extraordinarily fortunate in having a man like Dr. Cassey to run the association, in the same way as it is extraordinarily fortunate to have Dr. Speakman at Leeds University. There has been the closest collaboration between the University and the Research Association, and that does not always apply. It speaks volumes for the personalities of both Dr. Cassey and Professor Speakman.
It would be unreasonable to give the impression that only organised research is going on. One instance I might mention is the invention of Air Vice-Marshal Ambler, who has made to the textile industry perhaps the most significant technical contribution of this century. That has been not the product of the Research Association or of Leeds University but largely of Air Vice-Marshal Ambler's own ingenuity. However, it speaks also for the co-operation when I say that this invention could not have been brought to its present stage but for the co-operation of the university in the higher mathematics necessary for it to be brought to perfection.
I am glad to see this Order brought forward because I hope it will settle a period of some dispute between His Majesty's Government and the employers in this industry. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, despite the rugged individualism of those who run the industry, they have an admirable sense of public duty and that within the Wool Textile Delegation they have built up an organisation which is a pattern to many industries in this country. They have been quite ready to put joint consultation at all levels into their own organisation.
I hope, therefore, that in a short time this little dispute will have been forgotten. I understand there has been an announcement of an agreement to set up a joint consultation body. I hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about that since it was made public yesterday. I hope that body will prosper. Both the unions and the employers are to be


congratulated, and His Majesty's Government are no less to be congratulated for so belatedly agreeing to a voluntary council. We wish this research organisation every success, and no doubt it will continue to do the fine work which Torrington has done in the last 30 years.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Rhodes: If I may give a short reply, I would say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. Spence), that the interests of the small man will be looked after because there is adequate representation over the whole field on the Wool Textile Research Council. The same applies to the particularly specialised branch mentioned by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I understand that branch has a member on the Council. I cannot say, of course, how the money will be spent. That will be at the discretion of the Wool Textile Research Council which will have the disposition of it but, knowing Yorkshiremen, I think the House can be assured that the money will be well spent. I, too, hope that research in the wool industry will go forward with profit to all those engaged in it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved."—[Mr. Rhodes.]

SCOTTISH MILK MARKETING SCHEME

Resolved:
That the Draft Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme (Extension of Area) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Miss Herbison.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Alford, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 20th October, be approved.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

5.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I beg to move,
That the Order [19th July], for presenting to His Majesty an humble Address, That the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July, be discharged.
The House will recall that on 19th July a Motion was made, a Question was put, and a draft Order was approved by this House in connection with the granting of international organisation immunities and privileges to the Universal Postal Union. After some Debate, in which some points were raised on the other side of the House which the Government took into consideration, the Motion was carried and went to another place. There, by similar action, further matters were raised, discussion took place, and the Government then decided to withdraw the Order and to give further consideration to the matter.
The question of privileges and immunities for other organisations also arises in this connection, and, in view of the approaching end of the Session and the fact that the correspondence as regards these other organisations is still continuing. I have to request the House to discharge this Motion as it was originally put forward and approved by the House. That is subject, of course, to the matter being raised again when the policy of the Government is decided in view of the further circumstances mentioned above.
I therefore ask the House to approve the discharge of this order, to enable the discussions which are now taking place to be concluded and for a further order to be introduced should the Government so decide.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We are really being asked to agree to something which is without precedent in this Parliament. On 19th July the Government sought to obtain consent to a Motion without making any explanatory speech giving the reasons for it—in our usual language, trying to get the order "on the nod." They were stopped from doing that by an eloquent speech


made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who raised a number of points with regard to his Order.
Then the Minister of State arose and gave an explanation, but it was not a satisfactory one. The Debate continued and, in spite of many requests from this side, no information was given to us as to what had happened since the start of the Universal Postal Union to make it necessary, after that body had been in existence for 75 years, to confer upon it and upon its officials a wide range of diplomatic privileges.
It was only after considerable pressure that we received a further statement from the Government with regard to that order. Then, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the matter came up for discussion in another place, where the same points were raised as were raised from this side of the House during the discussion here.
The hon. Gentleman, in moving this Motion today, said that some points were raised in the discussion here; he said that they were taken into consideration by the Government then. All I can say is that there was no indication that they were taken into consideration by the Government then at all.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Hear, hear.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that further matters were raised in another place. They were not—they were the same points. The difference between this place and another place was that the points when raised in another place had consideration given to them by the Lord Chancellor, with the result that the Government withdrew this order for further consideration.
Considerable Parliamentary time has been occupied in discussing this order which the hon. Gentleman now asks us to agree should be discharged. How much better it would have been had the Government given more consideration before introducing any order of this sort; if they had thought out a little more this question of granting diplomatic privileges to members of organisations which had existed for so long and without experiencing any need whatever for them. Not only did the Government, apparently, not

think the matter out before introducing the order to this House, but even when objections were raised and points were asked which required an answer, it does not appear, judging by the sequence of events, that proper consideration was given by the Government to the points that we raised from this side.
The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that it is his view that we should look with careful and watchful eyes to see what ought to be done in the way of granting further extensions of diplomatic privilege. We on this side have continued to do that and I am glad that this Motion has now come forward. I hope that before we are asked to approve any other order conferring any further diplomatic privileges on any organisation, or on any officials of any organisation, the matter will be more fully considered in all its aspects than has been the case with regard to this particular order.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that the Opposition very much welcome the discharge of this Order. When the Government invited the House to make this Order, at least a dozen Members spoke from this side against it. The Minister who is in charge today was not in charge on that occasion, and in those circumstances the House is always inclined to be merciful to a Minister who has to withdraw the mistakes made by another Minister, even if that other Minister belongs to the same Department.
The hon. Gentleman is asking the House to believe rather much, however, when he says that the Government took into consideration the objections made to the Order from the Opposition benches. The Government did nothing of the sort. What actually happened was that the Minister of State said that there was nothing whatever in any of the points we had taken. That is a rather curious way of taking into consideration the objections which we were putting.
Let me read just two sentences of what the Minister of State said on that last occasion:
All hon. Members who have looked at the privileges and immunities sought to be granted


will realise that it is necessary that some provisions of this kind should be made if international organisations are to function adequately.
He said a little later:
It will be remembered that, when the 1950 Diplomatic Privileges Act was passed through the House, it was agreed that, in Orders which might subsequently be made, the privileges and immunities granted should not go beyond what it was necessary to grant for the carrying out of the international obligation. That is what we are seeking to do in this case. …" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2401.]
Member after Member from these benches pointed out that there was no reason whatever to give the diplomatic privileges which it was sought to give by this Order, which the House is now invited to discharge.
The same arguments were produced in another place and on the excellent advice of the Lord Chancellor the Minister there in charge took the Order back. The Lord Chancellor said that he would invite his noble Friend
to take it back so that we can consider where we are.
That was very good advice by the Lord Chancellor. What the Government discovered was that every argument put forward from the Opposition benches was correct and that every argument put forward in favour of the Order from the Government benches was wrong. That is why the Minister comes here today to ask for the Order to be discharged. I think that the House will discharge it eagerly, because the Order which was passed was complete nonsense.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Order [19th July], for presenting to His Majesty an humble Address, That the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July, be discharged.

BRIDGE, RUNCORN—WIDNES

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: The subject of this Debate—the bridge between Runcorn and Widnes—may at first sight appear to

be of a somewhat parochial nature, affecting only my own constituency of Runcorn and that of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who, I hope, Sir, may catch your eye later. It also concerns, however, many industrial areas in the south and west of Lancashire and, to a lesser extent, all those whose commercial vehicles use the western traffic routes between Lancashire and the North, on the one hand, and between the Midlands and the South, on the other hand.
This is a subject with which the Minister, when he is with us, is familiar, and a subject to which, I believe, he is sympathetic, but we make no apology for raising this matter again because we feel that it is of growing importance. There are five crossings of the River Mersey between Manchester and Liverpool, including that of the Mersey Tunnel. All of them are congested, all have long and narrow approach routes, and on all except two of them tolls have to be paid.
The crossing between Runcorn and Widnes is served at present by what is known locally as "the transporter bridge." I can only describe this as a sort of horizontal funicular. It was built in 1905 and was designed primarily for horse-drawn vehicles. It is owned at present by the Widnes Corporation. It is, of course, quite inadequate and entirely out of date. To remedy this situation, plans for a new high level bridge were drawn up in 1947 and Parliamentary approval was given in that year. Preliminary arrangements were put in hand straightaway and have been completed, but now, some three and a half years later, Ministerial approval is still withheld on account of the economic situation. Our contention is that the construction of the new bridge, by contributing towards increased production and efficiency, would, in fact, help the economic situation.
Three potential types of traffic would wish to use the crossing. First, there is the traffic which is almost entirely local, which uses the present transporter bridge. In the month of September just past, the traffic actually using the existing bridge amounted to 140,000 foot passengers, 16,000 bicycles and motor cycles, and 25,000 four-wheel vehicles. That is in the one month. Secondly there is that traffic which only wishes to move from Runcorn to Widnes or alternatively from Widnes


to Runcorn, and which should use a bridge between the two places, and which rather than face the average delay of 40 minutes in waiting for the "transporter" and pay the heavy tolls prefers to make a detour of some 16 miles via Warrington or a rather longer detour via Liverpool.
Thirdly, there is the through traffic from Lancashire to the Midlands which at present does not use this route at all but would use it if an up to date efficient bridge were available. It is estimated that these last two groups, that is the traffic which at present does not use the bridge but would do so if a modern bridge were there is estimated—these are official figures—as being 10 times the traffic which uses the bridge at present. In other words, when the bridge is constructed the traffic along this road will increase tenfold from the present average of some 700 four-wheeled vehicles daily to about 7,000. Surely these figures are proof of the need for this bridge and of the necessity to raise this matter.
I should like to give to the Minister five additional reasons why this problem has become more urgent of recent date, possibly more urgent than I believe he himself realises. In the first place, the present transporter bridge is in danger of collapse. In support of that view I need do nothing but quote the words of the consulting engineer—a member of a firm of consulting engineers held in great repute by the Ministry—when he gave evidence before the Select Committee on 22nd April, 1947. In reply to a question on the state of the present bridge he said "The bridge is worn out." That was some 3½ years ago. We still have the same bridge. Repairs may be effected but that is no long term or real solution.
Secondly, there is a continual increase in traffic over the present bridge, in lorry traffic in particular. Since 1939 there has been a 75 per cent. increase in four-wheeled traffic across the present transporter bridge, and since 1947, the year in which the Measure became law, the lorry traffic has increased by no less than 30 per cent.
Thirdly, there is the fact that the workers of Widnes and Runcorn have never interchanged more than they do today. Many of those who live in Widnes work in Runcorn, and many of those

who live in Runcorn work in Widnes. There is rail communication between the two towns but it is useless because there is no rail stop on the Widnes side. Those wishing to go to work have to use either the transporter bridge or take a foot passage along the railway embankment. In either case it is a waste of time and effort. Although it is not a part of their working time it is generally agreed today that conditions of travel to and from work are an important contributory factor towards the productivity of individual workers. Practically every report from America of the productivity teams support that contention.
Fourthly, the delay and resulting cost to local industry is immense. Practically every industry in the two towns is interdependent. The chemical, leather and allied industries in particular are located on both banks of the river and their inter-communication has to be done either by an extensive delay of 40 minutes at the present rate or else by making this lengthy and expensive detour via Warrington or Liverpool. I will give one instance of one firm, admittedly the largest, who have calculated that in the present year or in any one year the charges of the added cost of tolls, transport delays and alternative routing costs them not less than £15,700 per annum, all because the present bridge is inadequate. These figures can if necessary be produced to the Minister. Every other industry in the same locality can produce similar figures.
Fifthly, on both alternative routes—Warrington and Liverpool—congestion is increasing month by month, partly due to the increase in road vehicles and other reasons. Fifty per cent. of the traffic using the Mersey tunnel is through traffic, much of which should not use it. Much of that traffic would use this bridge were it available. These few facts and figures—they are a few of the many available—illustrate what we think is the growing urgency of this situation. We do not wish this bridge to be built for our convenience. It is not a matter of it being a social asset, for many workers will be displaced from their homes. We regard this as a progressive step towards increased production.
I believe it is a measure which calls for a share of the capital investment programme, in which respect it compares


very favourably with any other project. Unfortunately it is so difficult to measure the production quotient of a measure like this. For that reason it may compare somewhat unfavourably with the list of priorities which the Minister must have before him. We believe, however, that this project should obtain a high priority.
We do not ask or expect tonight the Minister to say that he can sanction the whole of this project. That will not be necessary. We feel that we should have a clear and definite answer as to what chance and what hope there is of this work commencing in the near future. The immediate requirement is that the foundation work be commenced, particularly that portion of the foundation work needed to serve as a protection to the Manchester Ship Canal. While that work is going on it is impossible and unnecessary to start any other work—not even the fabrication of the steel work of the superstructure. The work to which I have referred will take from nine months to a year. In the first year of work upon the project it should not be necessary to expend more than £100,000 upon it. As well as asking tonight for a definite priority for this project we ask that approval should be given for that sum in the capital estimates for 1951.
Should this, in due course—we may not get an answer on that point tonight—prove impossible, I would ask that serious consideration be given to alternative schemes to meet this difficulty, because I believe that that will be more beneficial than indefinite delay in always waiting for an improvement in the economic situation. We shall always have that answer given for many years, whatever party may be in power. Furthermore, I would suggest that if the Minister should doubt any of the facts and figures which I have produced tonight or give to him in private, if he should think that I exaggerate the position, then I ask him to come and see for himself.
I fully realise that to ask at present for any capital investment project to be put in hand must mean that it will compete with defence needs. I am quite sure that a bridge across the Mersey at this point is a vital necessity in our defence programme. In view of the present state of the bridge there can be no guarantee that in one, two or three years time there

will be any bridge there at all. For that reason I ask that urgent consideration be given to this problem.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I should like to express appreciation to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) for so kindly giving me an opportunity of putting the point of view of Widnes on this very vexed question. As it happens, we are not quite so pressed for time as we might be, but the generosity of the hon. Member is not any the less for that.
I want to press my right hon. Friend very hard on the matter of this bridge, but in doing so, it is only fair to say that the present grave situation is not in any way his fault. He finds himself in a position which is common enough in these days. This bridge was out-of-date many years ago and it could have been demolished and a new bridge put in its place before the war at comparatively small cost when there were reserves of resources which could be used for the purpose. Unfortunately, that was not done, and now the hon. Member for Runcorn, myself and others are having to press my right hon. Friend to do something which I quite understand is exceedingly difficult for him to do.
I wish to press on him that this is not just a question of two hon. Members trying to get a little slice from the pork barrel for their constituents. This bridge is in fact a vital industrial artery linking up South-West Lancashire with Cheshire and the South. Much of the traffic which either queues up to use it, or ought to be using it but has to make a long and inconvenient detour, is not local traffic at all. The Mersey is a big boundary to cross. At one end there is the tunnel, which is already showing signs of congestion and. at the best, is rather difficult of access. As one sees in the newspapers, it is presenting problems of traffic control. At the one end is Warrington, which is already extremely congested, and those two points are no alternative at all to the smooth and easy crossing of the river which is required between Runcorn and Widnes in order to go north.
I do not know whether the House quite appreciates what the problem is. Probably some hon. Members have not seen this extraordinary contraption, the transporter bridge. In form it is a carriage attached to a trolley which is towed across


the river on a kind of suspension bridge. The result is that the loads on the car have to be limited, so that heavy industrial traffic either cannot go on it at all, or has to go on in small quantities—

Mr. Shurmer: It is similar to the one at Newport.

Mr. MacColl: It is similar to those at Middlesbrough and at Newport. I had the rather dubious pleasure of walking over this bridge and watching the effect as heavy traffic is taken across. I wish I could take my right hon. Friend for a walk along the bridge. To walk along this crazy contraption, when from time to time something gives way and one tries to steady oneself on the railing and then the railing gives way from the screws, made me wonder whether my majority justified me in risking my seat by carrying these explorations much further. It is the kind of contraption which was admirable and something of a wonder 50 years ago, when used for carrying private horse carriages. At that time it was something to marvel at and it is still something of a marvel to watch it working, but not quite such a pleasant marvel.
That bridge is having to carry the burden of heavy chemical traffic from I.C.I. from one side of the river to the other. If my right hon. Friend has any-withers still to be wrung, this should wring them—it is the main communication between the two branches of our local Co-operative society. Runcorn and Widnes share a co-operative society and the milk has to be carried across this bridge. I am informed by the society that the extra cost of delay, apart from the tolls which have to be paid, is substantial and is about 11 per cent. of the total transport costs of the Society.
I know my right hon. Friend accepts all this and accepts the necessity of doing something about the bridge. I quite appreciate that his difficulty is that there are many other claims upon his resources, but I should like to underline the point made by the hon. Member for Runcorn that it is no answer to say that owing to the claims of defence it is necessary to postpone doing something about this bridge. If, in fact, the defence situation becomes worse and there has to be a

great increase in output, inevitably the strain will be felt by the vital industries situated on both banks of the Mersey, even more than it is felt at the moment. It seems to me quite impossible to develop the industries of South-West Lancashire in the way my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—who sits for the neighbouring constituency to mine—is anxious to do as long as there is this situation in which industrial traffic, vital to the welfare of the country, has to sit perhaps for an hour and a half or more queuing to get on to this transporter bridge.
As the hon. Member for Runcorn said, it is not only the bridge as it is at the moment which is causing concern, but the bridge as it is going to be in the next five years or so. At the moment it is cared for with fatherly care by an exceedingly experienced engineer, past the age for retirement, who is carrying on from day to day because he knows the bridge so intimately. That position cannot go on for ever, and any moment we may be faced with the situation that the bridge is no longer useful, as either it will have completely collapsed or can no longer be used by heavy industrial traffic.
I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the House tonight what he is going to do if this bridge closes down. What alternative means has he for taking this industrial traffic to and fro across the river? That is the problem causing great concern to local industrial undertakings, the chamber of commerce and other people living with this problem from day to day. I ask my right hon. Friend tonight to do two things. I ask him, first, to try to give us some kind of comfort, some kind of indication that it will be possible to get on with this bridge so that at least we can have some certainty of what is likely to happen in the future. Secondly, I should like him to give some assurance that he has alternative proposals to put forward if the bridge can no longer be used.
At the moment the situation is one which is bound to cause the gravest anxiety to anyone who cares not only about the industrial and commercial life of Runcorn and Widnes, but of the whole area and, indeed, of the whole of South-West Lancashire. I emphasise the point, put so well by the hon. Member for Runcorn, that this is not only a problem of


domestic traffic, but of a vital industrial key and, unless my right hon. Friend can find some way of providing the money for the purpose—which, I am sure, he admits is entirely needed—we are faced with a very grave situation which can only cause grave disquiet among hon. Members on all sides of the House really interested in this problem.

6.0 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I desire to make it plain at the commencement of my remarks that I take no exception to the way in which the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) have raised this matter. I would go further and say that the hon. Member for Runcorn is quite justified—in fact it is his duty—to take this opportunity to emphasise the seriousness of the problem if this transporter bridge at any time failed to carry the very heavy traffic that passes over it. It appeared to me that both hon. Members submitted their case in the most reasonable way possible.
I will deal with one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes. He wished to know what provision I would make if anything happened to this bridge and it went out of commission. Even if it were possible to sanction immediately the construction of a new bridge, it would take something like four years with the work going at full speed. So that is not really a material point at the moment. The situation is serious, the bridge is now maintained by heavy and constant repairs, but I have no reason to believe that we are faced with immediate disaster.
Of course, as has been pointed out this evening, the bridge is some 40 years old and does represent a very vital artery between Warrington and the Mersey Tunnel. I do not dispute the facts as submitted. It was in 1943 that the consulting engineers expressed a view that a new bridge should replace the old one within a period of five years. That was in the middle of the war, and in many directions we have had to make do and mend. I must confess that in this case there is a good deal of mending that must proceed to keep this bridge in commission.
There are two county councils involved, the Lancashire County Council and the Cheshire County Council. Both of them have accepted a joint responsibility for

this matter, and obtained the necessary powers to proceed with the new bridge in 1947. The estimate for the new bridge is £3½ million, and of course that is a most substantial figure for me to find at the present moment, with the exceedingly limited and narrow margins upon which my Department have to work.
I have time after time emphasised to hon. Members that the provisions of the Road Fund at the present moment only enable a maintenance standard of something like 65 per cent. of our pre-war standard of maintenance. When that is carried through, there is very little left for new construction work. That is the hard fact which we have to face when we consider claims of this description. They are all justified in themselves, but the money is not there to deal with them. That being the case, and being unable to sanction the reconstruction scheme, my Department have been in consultation with the county councils to see whether in this intervening period some agreement can be reached so that at least the preliminary work should proceed.
The figure which I had been given for the whole of the foundation work, which, if commenced, would possibly occupy a period of two years, is in the neighbourhood of £3 million to £4 million. It was quite impossible for me to face an expenditure of that kind in the immediate future in view of the other claims pressing upon the limited means at my disposal. We then directed our attention to whether the whole of the foundational work need proceed. Here we begin to move towards the possibility that in the future at least the protective preliminary work which the Manchester Ship Canal requires should be carried out. I should be prepared to consider that.
The consulting engineers, as has been stated by my hon. Friend, have a good deal of work of this description to do. They are a very reputable firm and their opinion can be taken quite seriously in matters of this kind. I understand that they are of opinion that the preliminary production work necessary in connection with the Manchester Ship Canal could be executed for a figure of approximately £20,000. But the engineers speaking for the Manchester Ship Canal are of opinion that the protective work would cost something in the neighbourhood of £120,000,


and this evening the hon. Member for Runcorn mentioned a figure of £100,000.
At the present stage we may have to determine a figure of that kind by the process of arbitration. While, of course, I am unable to commit myself with regard to next year's Estimates, I would say that we fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation, not only from the defence angle, but from the industrial angle in this very heavily industrialised district, if a vital traffic artery of this kind should fail to perform its functions. Therefore, while this evening I can give no definite promise to the hon. Members, I shall pursue this question of the preliminary protective work in connection with the Manchester Ship Canal to see whether an agreement on the estimate can be expedited. If we are able to expedite agreement between the various parties and my Ministry are able to accept that, I would consider—and I can go no further than that—whether it is possible to get that in by the 1951–52 Estimates.
I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. Members for the way they have raised this matter. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the problem in any way. I agree entirely with them that this bridge badly needs to be reconstructed, and no one regrets more than I do that the financial circumstances today prevent me from sanctioning a "go ahead" for the whole scheme. As that is not possible, I will at least address my mind to that preliminary stage which I have mentioned so that while we are waiting to see whether the financial circumstances of the Road Fund can improve we can, at least consider this preliminary work. I regret it is not possible for me to go any further than that this evening.

BRITISH MUSEUM (CARYATID)

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for accepting very short notice of my supplementary Adjournment subject. At the start, I would say that I am a little conscience-stricken on account of the Government and Opposition Whips because, for too long, I remember having sat on the Government Front Bench and wondered why hon. Members must get up at improbable moments and raise still

more improbable subjects. If they will accept that little expression of sympathy from me, perhaps they will bear with me.
I want to raise tonight a subject in which I think many Members on both sides of the House will take an interest when they trouble to think about the history in this country of the valuable contents of our museums. I refer to the fact that there exists in the British Museum one of the six caryatides, this caryatid having been removed from the Erechtheum on the Acropolis over a hundred years ago.
Hon. Members will know that in the newspapers at fairly regular intervals there is correspondence discussing the pros and cons of the return of the so-called Elgin Marbles to Athens. This caryatid is an object which I think can be conveniently segregated from the main Elgin Marbles in that it was from a different part of the Acropolis itself and is a single object. I know that there are arguments frequently used against the returning of the Elgin Marbles. It is said that they were removed at an opportune moment to prevent further damage; that if they were returned to their original position people would not be able to see the detail of the work anyhow; and that in their original form they were probably coloured. But, Sir, I am not really concerned with that sort of argument.
The House will remember that after the Armistice of 1945 many valuable works of art which had been removed by the Germans and their allies from the various capitals and museums of Europe were returned to their original places. Lists of these treasures which had been removed were the subject of very detailed inquiry when the Germans were confronted with their war crimes.
The history of the caryatid in question is that it was removed between the years 1801 and 1803 by James Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin at the time he was the ambassador to the Porte, the "Sublime Porte" as I believe it is correct to call it. The 1945 American edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says of the Earl of Elgin:
During his stay at Constantinople he formed the purpose of removing from Athens the celebrated sculptures now known as the Elgin Marbles. His action was censured by some as vandalism, and doubts were also expressed as to the artistic value of many of the marbles; but he vindicated himself in a


pamphlet published in 1810, and entitled 'Memorandum on the Subject of the Earl of Elgin's Pursuits in Greece.'
I think that is quite a good description.
In 1816 the collection was purchased by the nation for £36,000, and placed in the British Museum, the outlay incurred by Lord Elgin having been more than £50,000.
I detect a suggestion there against the nation for not being very generous. The Encyclopaedia then says that Lord Elgin was a Scottish representative Peer—whatever that may mean—for 50 years.
It is probably true that during the Turkish occupation the Erechtheum as such was very badly misused. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Erechtheum was used as the harem of the then Turkish commandant. That is as it may be. But is it not logical that if, during this last war, the Germans removed works of art and then were forced to return them, we should start considering whether that great 19th century tendency to remove works of art from their original places should be reconsidered?
There are many beautiful things in our museums which one would like to suppose were fully appreciated by the public. I took the trouble to go to the British Museum to look at this caryatid. I had some difficulty in making myself understood, possibly because I am not a classical scholar and perhaps my pronunciation was not very good. The fact is that eventually I found this caryatid in a very secluded corner in a very secluded wing of the British Museum. It was not an object which attracted very much attention, except possibly from classical students and the like.
One must try to weigh in one's mind whether the value to the student world, and to artistically appreciative people as a whole, of the caryatid in its present position outweighs the emotional and, I think, the political value that it would attract if the gesture was made by the Government of returning it to the Greek Government. The Greek Government, as we all know, have had their trials and tribulations. We do not always approve of the form of Government which has persisted in Greece since the end of the war. The fact is that any nation at times needs some sort of focus with which to attract the patriotism and communal feeling of its people. That is especially so in a

country where there has been a disastrous civil war. There some instrument is needed whereby popular sentiment can be attracted and forged into a patriotic feeling.
I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to see whether he can do something in this matter. I should like to thank him for coming at very short notice to listen to what I have to say. I ask him whether he can draw this matter to the attention of the Treasury, or whatever Government Department is concerned, to see whether it is possible to introduce if necessary some sort of Motion not involving legislation, because that would be out of order during an Adjournment Debate, which would permit us to return this caryatid to its original place.
I saw the so-called Porch of the Maidens, which is the relevant spot of the Erechtheum, about three years ago; and I must say that it did not look very good to see five statues with the sixth place occupied by what appeared to be a block of wood. At one time the missing caryatid was replaced by a terracotta replica. I do not think that was the case when I saw it. A block of wood was in its place. No doubt the Germans, or the occupying authorities during the war, created still further havoc and removed that terra-cotta replica. I do not know.
It is now 150 years since this sixth young woman was removed from the stone sorority of the Erechtheum. I think that it is about time that she should be returned. The poor girl is getting tired of being cloistered away in the British museum. It is about time that she went back to the sunny climate of Greece. It is most important that every aid should be given to any nation which is trying to create a new conception of democracy. This would be a very modest contribution. Every aid should be given to this nation in its efforts to promote democracy.

6.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): From the nature of things, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, I have had no notice at all that this subject was to be raised on the Adjournment. I regret to say that offhand I cannot say


whether there is any Governmental responsibility in this matter. Even if there were Governmental responsibility, I am not certain whether legislation would be involved to do what my hon. Friend suggests. My qualifications for replying to the hon. Gentleman are really that I am an admirer, as I think we all are, of the works of the Greeks of the fifth century B.C. and because I have visited not only Greece but the British Museum. The only undertaking I can give is that I will pass on to the trustees of the British Museum a full note of my hon. Friend's interesting speech.

RAILWAY SLEEPING CARS

6.20 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, for taking this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment at about three minutes' notice.
What I want to raise is the question of the booking of first and third class sleepers by the general travelling public. I read with interest the second Annual Report of the British Transport Commission, but in that Report I found very little mention of sleepers, though it stated that, during the summer, the demand for first and third class sleeping compartments exceeds the supply and in winter there is some increase in the number of sleepers available.
I should like to give an idea of what has to be done by the general travelling public in order to get a sleeper. About two months before one wants to make a booking, one has to ring up or go round to a railway station and ask whether one may have a sleeper for something like two months ahead. One's name is then put on a waiting list. If the application has been made by post, the applicant receives a very courteous card stating that his name has been placed on the waiting list. Week after week, one telephones and inquires how one is situated on the waiting list, and one is told that one is tenth, eighth or whatever it is on the list until the great day arrives.
From my investigations, it is necessary to write or to ring up something like

two months ahead, and sometimes one is told about a week before the time of travelling—and this applies in London especially—that the accommodation is available. If only six weeks' notice has been given, it is very often the case that not until four o'clock on the day on which it is intended to travel is the applicant definitely informed that a sleeper is available. It is, therefore, almost unsafe today for the general travelling public to make business appointments at short notice or for people to arrange their holidays, because they have to be worried for many weeks, and quite unnecessarily, about whether they will be able to take their accommodation on the day of travel. This is, of course, a constant worry to many people using the railways today.
I have made every investigation into this situation, and the Minister is aware of this, because he has seen me once about it already. The other day, travelling to Glasgow, I thought I would not examine the position from the experiences of my own friends and business associates solely, but that I would walk down the train to the sleeper compartments and ask people whom I did not know what was their experience. I can assure the Minister that all the people occupying sleeper compartments to whom I spoke stated that the situation is as I have described it in general terms. I asked one man why it was, and I will quote his actual words. He said, "I know what is wrong; it's those bloody M.P.s." It is not, however, only Members of Parliament who are responsible, I know, but we must agree that this is a very serious problem indeed for very many of the travelling public, and I raise it in no spirit of levity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I understood the hon. Gentleman to use a word which should not be used here. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Browne: Yes, but Mr. Speaker, in his Ruling of 10th May, said that if the word was used in a quotation, it was in order, and I was only giving a quotation of what a gentleman said to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I remember that Ruling, but I think we should use it with caution; otherwise, we may be saying all sorts of things about people.

Mr. Browne: I apologise for using the word, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will ask the Railway Executive to make arrangements so that those who apply for a sleeper may be told immediately, either that they have secured a booking or that they have not, or alternatively that if they like to wait until all the priorities have been taken up, they can then take their chance. I cannot see why people who take up sleeper accommodation should not be made to pay for it, and that seems to me to be one solution. It should be possible by such a system to ensure that applicants are told immediately that a sleeper is available for them for a journey. I also ask the Minister to examine all the priorities, as well as the number of them, in order to see exactly what can be done to provide extra accommodation. Finally, I thank him very much for waiting here this evening to hear what I had to say.

6.25 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I understand that I can only speak again with the leave of the House, and I only wish to do so for the purpose of assuring the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) that I will read very carefully the report of what he has said this evening. As he has already indicated, we have had discussions on this matter, and I am familiar with the problem. The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with a particularly heavy route—that to Scotland. There is the problem of rolling stock and other facilities, but, so far as the administration of the booking system is concerned, I want to convey to him that it is under my examination and that I hope soon that we may have an easement of the situation, if not a solution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Six o'Clock.